32
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Association of General Anesthesia vs Procedural Sedation With Functional Outcome Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Undergoing Thrombectomy : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is there a difference in functional outcome at 3 months between patients who receive general anesthesia or procedural sedation during stroke thrombectomy?

          Findings

          In this individual patient data meta-analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials that included 368 patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation, the use of general anesthesia during thrombectomy, compared with procedural sedation, was significantly associated with less disability at 3 months (common odds ratio for categorical shift in the modified Rankin Scale score, 1.58).

          Meaning

          General anesthesia during thrombectomy, compared with procedural sedation, was associated with less disability at 3 months after ischemic stroke, although the findings should be interpreted tentatively because the individual trials analyzed were single-center trials and disability was the primary outcome in only 1 trial.

          Abstract

          Importance

          General anesthesia during thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke has been associated with poor neurological outcome in nonrandomized studies. Three single-center randomized trials reported no significantly different or improved outcomes for patients who received general anesthesia compared with procedural sedation.

          Objective

          To detect differences in functional outcome at 3 months between patients who received general anesthesia vs procedural sedation during thrombectomy for anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke.

          Data Source

          MEDLINE search for English-language articles published from January 1, 1980, to July 31, 2019.

          Study Selection

          Randomized clinical trials of adults with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of at least 10 and anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke assigned to receive general anesthesia or procedural sedation during thrombectomy.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Individual patient data were obtained from 3 single-center, randomized, parallel-group, open-label treatment trials with blinded end point evaluation that met inclusion criteria and were analyzed using fixed-effects meta-analysis.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Degree of disability, measured via the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range 0-6; lower scores indicate less disability), analyzed with the common odds ratio (cOR) to detect the ordinal shift in the distribution of disability over the range of mRS scores.

          Results

          A total of 368 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.5 [12.9] years; 163 [44.3%] women; median [interquartile range] National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 17 [14-21]) were included in the analysis, including 183 (49.7%) who received general anesthesia and 185 (50.3%) who received procedural sedation. The mean 3-month mRS score was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.5-3.1) in the general anesthesia group vs 3.2 (95% CI, 3.0-3.5) in the procedural sedation group (difference, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.03-0.83]; cOR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.09-2.29]; P = .02). Among prespecified adverse events, only hypotension (decline in systolic blood pressure of more than 20% from baseline) (80.8% vs 53.1%; OR, 4.26 [95% CI, 2.55-7.09]; P < .001) and blood pressure variability (systolic blood pressure >180 mm Hg or <120 mm Hg) (79.7 vs 62.3%; OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.49-3.93]; P < .001) were significantly more common in the general anesthesia group.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Among patients with acute ischemic stroke involving the anterior circulation undergoing thrombectomy, the use of protocol-based general anesthesia, compared with procedural sedation, was significantly associated with less disability at 3 months. These findings should be interpreted tentatively, given that the individual trials examined were single-center trials and disability was the primary outcome in only 1 trial.

          Abstract

          This meta-analysis pools individual patient data to estimate the association between receipt of general anesthesia vs procedural sedation and 3-month disability among patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy from 3 randomized trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          General Anesthesia Versus Conscious Sedation for Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: The AnStroke Trial (Anesthesia During Stroke).

          Retrospective studies have found that patients receiving general anesthesia for endovascular treatment in acute ischemic stroke have worse neurological outcome compared with patients receiving conscious sedation. In this prospective randomized single-center study, we investigated the impact of anesthesia technique on neurological outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of General Anesthesia and Conscious Sedation During Endovascular Therapy on Infarct Growth and Clinical Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke

            Question Does infarct growth depend on the type of anesthesia used during endovascular therapy for stroke? Findings In this randomized, open-label clinical trial including 128 patients, no difference in infarct growth was found between patients randomized to the general anesthesia group and those randomized to the conscious sedation group. Meaning General anesthesia does not result in more infarct growth compared with conscious sedation during endovascular therapy for stroke. Importance Endovascular therapy (EVT) is the standard of care for select patients who had a stroke caused by a large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, but there is uncertainty regarding the optimal anesthetic approach during EVT. Observational studies suggest that general anesthesia (GA) is associated with worse outcomes compared with conscious sedation (CS). Objective To examine the effect of type of anesthesia during EVT on infarct growth and clinical outcome. Design, Setting, and Participants The General or Local Anesthesia in Intra Arterial Therapy (GOLIATH) trial was a single-center prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point evaluation that enrolled patients from March 12, 2015, to February 2, 2017. Although the trial screened 1501 patients, it included 128 consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusions in the anterior circulation within 6 hours of onset; 1372 patients who did not fulfill inclusion criteria and 1 who did not provide consent were excluded. Primary analysis was unadjusted and according to the intention-to-treat principle. Interventions Patients were randomized to either the GA group or the CS group (1:1 allocation) before EVT. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was infarct growth between magnetic resonance imaging scans performed before EVT and 48 to 72 hours after EVT. The hypothesis formulated before data collection was that patients who were under CS would have less infarct growth. Results Of 128 patients included in the trial, 65 were randomized to GA, and 63 were randomized to CS. For the entire cohort, the mean (SD) age was 71.4 (11.4) years, and 62 (48.4%) were women. Baseline demographic and clinical variables were balanced between the GA and CS treatment arms. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 18 (interquartile range [IQR], 14-21). Four patients (6.3%) in the CS group were converted to the GA group. Successful reperfusion was significantly higher in the GA arm than in the CS arm (76.9% vs 60.3%; P  = .04). The difference in the volume of infarct growth among patients treated under GA or CS did not reach statistical significance (median [IQR] growth, 8.2 [2.2-38.6] mL vs 19.4 [2.4-79.0] mL; P  = .10). There were better clinical outcomes in the GA group, with an odds ratio for a shift to a lower modified Rankin Scale score of 1.91 (95% CI, 1.03-3.56). Conclusions and Relevance For patients who underwent thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusions in the anterior circulation, GA did not result in worse tissue or clinical outcomes compared with CS. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02317237 This randomized clinical trial analyzes the effect of general anesthesia and conscious sedation on infarct growth and clinical outcome of patients who underwent endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA
                JAMA
                JAMA
                JAMA
                American Medical Association
                0098-7484
                1538-3598
                1 October 2019
                1 October 2019
                1 April 2020
                : 322
                : 13
                : 1283-1293
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
                [2 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
                [3 ]Department of Neurology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
                [4 ]Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
                [5 ]Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
                [6 ]Department of Radiology, Neuroendovascular Service, Texas Stroke Institute, Fort Worth
                [7 ]Department of Neuroradiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
                [8 ]German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
                [9 ]Department of Anesthesia, Section of Neuroanesthesia, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
                [10 ]Department of Radiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
                [11 ]Department of Neurology, Klinikum Kassel, Kassel, Germany
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Corresponding Author: Julian Bösel, MD, Department of Neurology, Klinikum Kassel, Mönchebergstrasse 41-43, 34125 Kassel, Germany ( julian.boesel@ 123456klinikum-kassel.de ).
                Accepted for Publication: August 20, 2019.
                Author Contributions : Drs Bösel and Schönenberger had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Schönenberger, Löwhagen Hendén, Simonsen, Rasmussen, Rentzos, and Bösel contributed equally.
                Concept and design: Schönenberger, Löwhagen Hendén, Simonsen, Uhlmann, Klose, Kieser, Rasmussen, Rentzos, Bösel.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Schönenberger, Uhlmann, Bösel.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Klose, Uhlmann, Kieser.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Schönenberger, Löwhagen Hendén, Simonsen, Klose, Pfaff, Sørensen, Ringleb, Wick, Möhlenbruch, Kieser, Rasmussen, Rentzos, Bösel.
                Supervision: Ringleb, Wick, Möhlenbruch, Kieser, Rasmussen, Rentzos, Bösel.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Simonsen reported receiving grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Bayer and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Pfaff reported receiving personal fees from Stryker and MircoVention outside the submitted work. Dr Yoo reported receiving grants from Neuravi, Penumbra, Cerenovus, Medtronic, Stryker, and Genentech and owns equity in Insera Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr Ringleb reported receiving personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Covidien, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. Dr Wick reported receiving research support from Appendix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, and Vaximm. Dr Möhlenbruch reported receiving personal fees from Codman, MicroVention, Phenox, and Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr Rentzos reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Medical Sweden and I4L Innovation for Life outside the submitted work. Dr Rasmussen reported receiving a grant from the Health Research Foundation of Central Denmark Region. Dr Bösel reported receiving personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, and Zoll and support from an award from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Additional Contributions: Katrin Jensen, PhD (Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany), contributed to the statistical analysis of the trial. Jan-Erik Karlsson, MD, PhD, and Lars Rosengren, MD, PhD (Department of Neurology Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden), reviewed the manuscript. We also thank Niels Juul, MD (Department of Anesthesia, Aarhus, Denmark), for providing the second rating during the risk of bias assessment of the selected trials (Cochrane ROB2-tool). None of these individuals received compensation. Sherryl Sundell, BA, contributed to this article as freelancer editor with language editing. She received financial compensation for the editing.
                Article
                PMC6777267 PMC6777267 6777267 joi190084
                10.1001/jama.2019.11455
                6777267
                31573636
                13abe369-1722-48b3-bcc2-2e204a3196e1
                Copyright 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
                History
                : 11 December 2018
                : 20 August 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation

                Comments

                Comment on this article