Fa Liang1, Youxuan Wu1, Xinyan Wang1, Li Yan2, Song Zhang2, Minyu Jian1, Haiyang Liu1, Anxin Wang3, Fan Wang4, Ruquan Han1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, the People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Baiyun Hospital, Guizhou Medical University, Guizhou, the People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Statistics, China National Clinical Research Centre for Neurological Diseases, Beijing, the People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Comprehensive Stroke Center, Baiyun Hospital, Guizhou Medical University, Guizhou, the People's Republic of China.
Abstract
Importance: No definitive conclusion can be made on the best choice of anesthesia for people with acute posterior circulation stroke during endovascular treatment. Only a few observational studies have focused on this topic in recent years, and they have differing conclusions. Objective: To examine whether conscious sedation (CS) is a feasible alternative to general anesthesia (GA) during endovascular treatment in patients with acute posterior circulation stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized parallel-group exploratory trial with blinded end point evaluation (Choice of Anesthesia for Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke [CANVAS II]) enrolled adult patients from March 2018 to June 2021 at 2 comprehensive care hospitals in China. Patients with acute posterior circulation stroke were enrolled, randomized, and monitored for 3 months. Of 210 patients admitted with acute ischemic posterior circulation stroke, 93 were recruited and 87 were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis after exclusions, 43 were assigned to GA and 44 to CS. All analyses were unadjusted or adjusted with the ITT principle. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to CS or GA in a 1:1 ratio. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was functional independence at 90 days evaluated with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Results: A total of 87 participants were included in the ITT study (mean [SD] age, 62 [12] years; 16 [18.4%] female and 71 [81.6%] male). Of these, 43 were in the GA group and 44 in the CS group. The overall baseline median (IQR) National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 15 (12-17). In the CS group, 13 people (29.5%) were ultimately transferred to GA. The CS group had a higher incidence of functional independence; however, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (48.8% vs 54.5%; risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.58-1.38; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.37-2.22). However, GA performed better in successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) under ITT analysis (95.3% vs 77.3%; adjusted OR, 5.86; 95% CI, 1.16-29.53). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings in this study suggest that CS was not better than GA for the primary outcome of functional recovery and was perhaps worse for the secondary outcome of successful reperfusion. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03317535.
Importance: No definitive conclusion can be made on the best choice of anesthesia for people with acute posterior circulation stroke during endovascular treatment. Only a few observational studies have focused on this topic in recent years, and they have differing conclusions. Objective: To examine whether conscious sedation (CS) is a feasible alternative to general anesthesia (GA) during endovascular treatment in patients with acute posterior circulation stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized parallel-group exploratory trial with blinded end point evaluation (Choice of Anesthesia for Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke [CANVAS II]) enrolled adult patients from March 2018 to June 2021 at 2 comprehensive care hospitals in China. Patients with acute posterior circulation stroke were enrolled, randomized, and monitored for 3 months. Of 210 patients admitted with acute ischemic posterior circulation stroke, 93 were recruited and 87 were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis after exclusions, 43 were assigned to GA and 44 to CS. All analyses were unadjusted or adjusted with the ITT principle. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to CS or GA in a 1:1 ratio. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was functional independence at 90 days evaluated with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Results: A total of 87 participants were included in the ITT study (mean [SD] age, 62 [12] years; 16 [18.4%] female and 71 [81.6%] male). Of these, 43 were in the GA group and 44 in the CS group. The overall baseline median (IQR) National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 15 (12-17). In the CS group, 13 people (29.5%) were ultimately transferred to GA. The CS group had a higher incidence of functional independence; however, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (48.8% vs 54.5%; risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.58-1.38; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.37-2.22). However, GA performed better in successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) under ITT analysis (95.3% vs 77.3%; adjusted OR, 5.86; 95% CI, 1.16-29.53). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings in this study suggest that CS was not better than GA for the primary outcome of functional recovery and was perhaps worse for the secondary outcome of successful reperfusion. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03317535.
Authors: Natalie E LeCouffe; Manon Kappelhof; Kilian M Treurniet; Leon A Rinkel; Agnetha E Bruggeman; Olvert A Berkhemer; Lennard Wolff; Henk van Voorst; Manon L Tolhuisen; Diederik W J Dippel; Aad van der Lugt; Adriaan C G M van Es; Jelis Boiten; Geert J Lycklama À Nijeholt; Koos Keizer; Rob A R Gons; Lonneke S F Yo; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Wim H van Zwam; Bob Roozenbeek; H Bart van der Worp; Rob T H Lo; Ido R van den Wijngaard; Inger R de Ridder; Vincent Costalat; Caroline Arquizan; Robin Lemmens; Jelle Demeestere; Jeannette Hofmeijer; Jasper M Martens; Wouter J Schonewille; Jan-Albert Vos; Maarten Uyttenboogaart; Reinoud P H Bokkers; Julia H van Tuijl; Hans Kortman; Floris H B M Schreuder; Hieronymus D Boogaarts; Karlijn F de Laat; Lukas C van Dijk; Heleen M den Hertog; Boudewijn A A M van Hasselt; Paul J A M Brouwers; Tomas Bulut; Michel J M Remmers; Anouk van Norden; Farshad Imani; Anouk D Rozeman; Otto E H Elgersma; Philippe Desfontaines; Denis Brisbois; Yves Samson; Frédéric Clarençon; G Menno Krietemeijer; Alida A Postma; Pieter-Jan van Doormaal; René van den Berg; Anouk van der Hoorn; Ludo F M Beenen; Daan Nieboer; Hester F Lingsma; Bart J Emmer; Jonathan M Coutinho; Charles B L M Majoie; Yvo B W E M Roos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael T Froehler; Johanna T Fifi; Arshad Majid; Archit Bhatt; Mingwen Ouyang; David L McDonagh Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Wim H van Zwam; Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Diederik W J Dippel; Andrew M Demchuk; Serge Bracard; Philip White; Antoni Dávalos; Charles B L M Majoie; Aad van der Lugt; Gary A Ford; Natalia Pérez de la Ossa; Michael Kelly; Romain Bourcier; Geoffrey A Donnan; Yvo B W E M Roos; Oh Young Bang; Raul G Nogueira; Thomas G Devlin; Lucie A van den Berg; Frédéric Clarençon; Paul Burns; Jeffrey Carpenter; Olvert A Berkhemer; Dileep R Yavagal; Vitor Mendes Pereira; Xavier Ducrocq; Anand Dixit; Helena Quesada; Jonathan Epstein; Stephen M Davis; Olav Jansen; Marta Rubiera; Xabier Urra; Emilien Micard; Hester F Lingsma; Olivier Naggara; Scott Brown; Francis Guillemin; Keith W Muir; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Jeffrey L Saver; Tudor G Jovin; Michael D Hill; Peter J Mitchell Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 44.182