Review of developments in anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy

Anesthesia for endovascular treatment in anterior circulation stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endovascular treatment in patients with acute anterior circulation stroke could be performed under either conscious sedation (CS) or general anesthesia (GA). Although several studies have investigated the association between the clinical outcomes and the two anesthesia methods, consensus is lacking.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE searches were used to select full-text articles comparing the effects of GA and CS on functional outcome and complications in patients with anterior circulation ischemic stroke. Enrolled patients were assigned to receive endovascular treatment with CS or GA, with a primary outcome of functional independency within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included intracranial hemorrhage, all-cause mortality at 90 days, pneumonia, and intraprocedural complications.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (3 RCTs and 10 observational studies), which included 3,857 patients (CS = 2,129, GA = 1,728), were eligible for the analysis. The overall analysis including the RCTs and observational studies demonstrated that the functional independence within 90 days occurred more frequently among patients with CS compared with GA (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05-1.92, p = 0.02); and the risk of mortality was higher with GA compared with CS; furthermore, CS was associated with lower rate of intracranial hemorrhage. In RCTs, GA was associated with increased functional independence (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.89, p = 0.01) and successful reperfusion (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.89, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In the overall analysis and observational studies, CS was associated with improved functional outcomes and relatively safe for anterior ischemic stroke compared with GA. While the pooled data from RCTs suggested that GA was associated with improved outcomes. The inconsistency indicated that more large-scale RCTs are required to evaluate what factors influenced the effect of the anesthesia methods on clinical outcomes.

Regional anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy: an audit over 10 years

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the failure rates and the frequency of anaesthesia-related complications of two different methods of regional anaesthesia used for carotid endarterectomy--cervical epidural (CE) anaesthesia and cervical plexus block (CPB).

METHODS

The study included 1828 carotid endarterectomies performed in 1455 patients between 1996 and 2006. A combination of deep and superficial CPB was used for 1166 procedures, whereas in 662 cases surgery was performed under CE anaesthesia.

RESULTS

The failure rate of CPB was 3% compared with 6.9% for CE anaesthesia (P < 0.0001). The reasons for failure of the anaesthetic techniques were (1) technical failure, (2) insufficient analgesia, (3) non-compliant patients, and (4) anaesthetic complications. The incidence of complications resulting from CE anaesthesia was significantly higher than with CPB; life-threatening complications--2% compared with 0.3% (P < 0.0001); other anaesthesia-related complications 5.7 vs 4.7%. Serious complications included inadvertant injection into the subarachnoid space or vertebral artery. The frequency of shunt insertion, perioperative stroke, and death from any cause was similar in both groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Both methods of regional anaesthesia are acceptable for carotid artery surgery. CPB is associated with a significantly lower frequency of anaesthesia-related complications and should therefore be considered the anaesthetic of choice. CE anaesthesia should not be performed except in extenuating circumstances such as variant anatomy or the requirement for more extensive surgery.

Continuous cervical plexus block for carotid body tumour excision in a patient with Eisenmenger's syndrome

A patient with Eisenmenger's syndrome presented for removal of a carotid body tumour. Continuous cervical plexus blockade was successfully used to provide peri-operative and postoperative analgesia. The risks and benefits of regional and general anaesthesia in this high risk patient are discussed.