Anesthesia-Related Outcomes for Endovascular Stroke Revascularization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background and Purpose—

There is currently controversy on the ideal anesthesia strategy during mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA group) and those receiving either local anesthesia or conscious sedation (non-GA group).

Methods—

A literature search on anesthesia and endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke was performed. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the following outcomes: recanalization rate, good functional outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin Score≤2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, death, vascular complications, respiratory complications, procedure time, and time to groin puncture.

Results—

Twenty-two studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies), including 4716 patients (1819 GA and 2897 non-GA) were included. In the nonadjusted analysis, patients in the GA group had higher odds of death (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66–2.45) and respiratory complications (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.22–2.37) and lower odds of good functional outcome (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48–0.64) compared with the non-GA group. There was no difference in procedure time between the 2 primary comparison groups. When adjusting for baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, GA was still associated with lower odds of good functional outcome (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29–0.94). When considering studies performed in the stent-retriever/aspiration era, there was no significant difference in good neurological outcome rates (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67–1.06).

Conclusions—

Acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing intra-arterial therapy may have worse outcomes when treated with GA as compared with conscious sedation/local anesthesia. However, major limitations of current evidence (ie, retrospective studies and selection bias) indicate a need for adequately powered, multicenter randomized controlled trials to answer this question.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles