Influence of Anesthesia Type on Outcomes after Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Meta-Analysis

General anesthesia versus nongeneral anesthesia during endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the safety and efficacy of general anesthesia (GA) and nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) on functional outcomes in patients receiving endovascular therapy for ischemic stroke.

METHODS

All available studies on the anesthetic management of patients with acute ischemic stroke in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were included. We also compared the clinical outcomes in the studies with subgroup analyses of the occlusion site (anterior vs. posterior circulation) and preretriever group versus retriever group. Functional independence, mortality, successful recanalization, hemodynamic instability, intracerebral hemorrhage, and respiratory complications were considered primary or secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 24,606 patients in 60 studies were included. GA had a lower risk of 90-day functional independence (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.77), higher risk of 90-day mortality (OR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.45), and successful reperfusion (OR = 1.18; 95% CI 1.94 to 6.82). However, there were no differences in functional independence and mortality between GA and non-GA at 90 days after the procedure.

CONCLUSION

The study shows poorer results in the GA group, which may be due to the inclusion of nonrandomized studies. However, analysis of the RCTs suggested that the outcomes do not differ between the two groups (GA vs. non-GA). Thus, general anesthesia is as safe as nongeneral anesthesia under standardized management.

General anesthesia or conscious sedation for thrombectomy in stroke patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Endovascular treatment for stroke patients usually requires anesthesia care, with no current consensus on the best anesthetic management strategy. Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have attempted to address this. In 2022, additional evidence from three new trials was published: the GASS trial, the CANVAS II trial, and preliminary results from the AMETIS trial, prompting the execution of this updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of general anesthesia and conscious sedation on functional outcomes measured with the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at three months.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating conscious sedation and general anesthesia in endovascular treatment. The following databases were examined: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess bias. In addition, trial sequence analysis was performed on the primary outcome to estimate if the cumulative effect is significant enough to be unaffected by further studies.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were identified, including 1,342 patients undergoing endovascular treatment for stroke. No significant differences were detected between general anesthesia and conscious sedation with regards to mRS, functional independence (mRS, 0-2), procedure duration, onset to reperfusion, mortality, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay. Patients treated under general anesthesia may have more frequent successful reperfusion, though the time from groin to reperfusion was slightly longer. Trial sequential analysis showed that additional trials are unlikely to show marked differences in mean mRS at three months.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, the choice of anesthetic strategy for endovascular treatment of stroke patients did not significantly impact functional outcome as measured with the mRS at three months. Patients managed with general anesthesia may have more frequent successful reperfusion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42022319368); registered 19 April 2022.

Estimation of treatment effects in observational stroke care data: comparison of statistical approaches

Introduction

Various statistical approaches can be used to deal with unmeasured confounding when estimating treatment effects in observational studies, each with its own pros and cons. This study aimed to compare treatment effects as estimated by different statistical approaches for two interventions in observational stroke care data.

Patients and methods

We used prospectively collected data from the MR CLEAN registry including all patients (n = 3279) with ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment (EVT) from 2014 to 2017 in 17 Dutch hospitals. Treatment effects of two interventions – i.e., receiving an intravenous thrombolytic (IVT) and undergoing general anesthesia (GA) before EVT – on good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≤2) were estimated. We used three statistical regression-based approaches that vary in assumptions regarding the source of unmeasured confounding: individual-level (two subtypes), ecological, and instrumental variable analyses. In the latter, the preference for using the interventions in each hospital was used as an instrument.

Results

Use of IVT (range 66–87%) and GA (range 0–93%) varied substantially between hospitals. For IVT, the individual-level (OR ~ 1.33) resulted in significant positive effect estimates whereas in instrumental variable analysis no significant treatment effect was found (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.58–1.56). The ecological analysis indicated no statistically significant different likelihood (β = − 0.002%; P = 0.99) of good functional outcome at hospitals using IVT 1% more frequently. For GA, we found non-significant opposite directions of points estimates the treatment effect in the individual-level (ORs ~ 0.60) versus the instrumental variable approach (OR = 1.04). The ecological analysis also resulted in a non-significant negative association (0.03% lower probability).

Discussion and conclusion

Both magnitude and direction of the estimated treatment effects for both interventions depend strongly on the statistical approach and thus on the source of (unmeasured) confounding. These issues should be understood concerning the specific characteristics of data, before applying an approach and interpreting the results. Instrumental variable analysis might be considered when unobserved confounding and practice variation is expected in observational multicenter studies.

Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke With or Without General Anesthesia: A Matched Comparison

BACKGROUND

Endovascular treatment in large artery occlusion stroke reduces disability. However, the impact of anesthesia type on clinical outcomes remains uncertain.

METHODS

We compared consecutive patients in the Swiss Stroke Registry with anterior circulation stroke receiving endovascular treatment with or without general anesthesia (GA). The primary outcome was disability on the modified Rankin Scale after 3 months, analyzed with ordered logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included dependency or death (modified Rankin Scale score ≥3), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale after 24 hours, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage with ≥4 points worsening on National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale within 7 days, and mortality. Coarsened exact matching and propensity score matching were performed to adjust for indication bias.

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred eighty-four patients (GA: n=851, non-GA: n=433) from 8 Stroke Centers were included. Patients treated with GA had higher modified Rankin Scale scores after 3 months than patients treated without GA, in the unmatched (odds ratio [OR], 1.75 [1.42-2.16]; P<0.001), the coarsened exact matching (n=332-524, using multiple imputations of missing values; OR, 1.60 [1.08-2.36]; P=0.020), and the propensity score matching analysis (n=568; OR, 1.61 [1.20-2.15]; P=0.001). In the coarsened exact matching analysis, there were no significant differences in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale after 1 day (estimated coefficient 2.61 [0.59-4.64]), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 1.06 [0.30-3.75]), dependency or death (OR, 1.42 [0.91-2.23]), or mortality (OR, 1.65 [0.94-2.89]). In the propensity score matching analysis, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale after 24 hours (estimated coefficient, 3.40 [1.76-5.04]), dependency or death (OR, 1.49 [1.07-2.07]), and mortality (OR, 1.65 [1.11-2.45]) were higher in the GA group, whereas symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly (OR, 1.77 [0.73-4.29]).

CONCLUSIONS

This large study showed worse functional outcome after endovascular treatment of anterior circulation stroke with GA than without GA in a real-world setting. This finding appears to be independent of known differences in patient characteristics between groups.

Anesthesia modality does not affect clinical outcomes of intra-arterial vasodilator treatment in patients with symptomatic cerebral vasospasms

Background: Delayed cerebral ischemia and cerebral vasospasm remain the leading causes of poor outcome in survivors of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Refractory cerebral vasospasms can be treated with endovascular vasodilator therapy, which can either be performed in conscious sedation or general anesthesia. The aim of this study is to compare the effect of the anesthesia modality on long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular vasodilator therapy due to cerebral vasospasm and hypoperfusion.

Methods: Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were retrospectively analyzed at time of discharge from the hospital and six months after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Additionally, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was assessed 24 hours before, immediately before, immediately after, and 24 hours after endovascular vasodilator therapy, and at discharge and six months. Interventional parameters such as duration of intervention, choice and dosage of vasodilator and number of arteries treated were also recorded.

Results: A total of 98 patients were included in this analysis and separated into patients who had interventions in conscious sedation, general anesthesia and a mix of both. Neither mRS at discharge nor at six months showed a significant difference for functionally independent outcomes (mRS 0-2) between groups. NIHSS before endovascular vasodilator therapy was significantly higher in patients receiving interventions in general anesthesia but did not differ anymore between groups six months after the initial bleed.

Conclusion: This study did not observe a difference in outcome whether patients underwent endovascular vasodilator therapy in general anesthesia or conscious sedation for refractory cerebral vasospasms. Hence, the choice should be made for each patient individually.

Outcome of endovascular treatment within and beyond 6 h without perfusion software

Endovascular treatment (EVT) has been accepted as the standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients who received EVT within and beyond 6 h from symptom onset to groin puncture without perfusion software in Guangdong district, China. Between March 2017 and May 2018, acute ischemic stroke patients who received EVT from 6 comprehensive stroke centers, were enrolled into the registry study. In this subgroup study, we included all patients who had acute proximal large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation. The demographic, clinical and neuroimaging data were collected from each center. A total of 192 patients were included in this subgroup study. They were divided into two groups: group A (n = 125), within 6 h; group B (n = 67), 6-24 h from symptom onset to groin puncture. There were no substantial differences between these two groups in terms of 90 days favorable outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS] ≤ 2, P = 0.051) and mortality (P = 0.083), and the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 h (P = 0.425). The NIHSS (median 16, IQR12-20, group A; median 12, IQR8-18, group B; P = 0.009) and ASPECTS (median 10, IQR8-10, group A; median 9, IQR8-10, group B; P = 0.034) at baseline were higher in group A. The anesthesia method (general anesthesia, 21.3%, group A vs. 1.5% group B, P = 0.001) were also statistically different between the two groups. The NIHSS and ASPECTS were higher, and general anesthesia was also more widely used in group A. Clinical outcomes were not significantly different within 6 h versus 6-24 h from symptom onset to groin puncture in this real world study.