Current evidence for anesthesia management during endovascular stroke therapy: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Anesthesia, General
/ adverse effects
Brain Ischemia
/ physiopathology
Endovascular Procedures
/ adverse effects
Evidence-Based Medicine
/ methods
Humans
Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring
/ methods
Observational Studies as Topic
/ methods
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ methods
Stents
/ adverse effects
Stroke
/ physiopathology
anesthesia
intubation
outcomes
stroke
Journal
Journal of neurointerventional surgery
ISSN: 1759-8486
Titre abrégé: J Neurointerv Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101517079
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
08
03
2018
revised:
01
05
2018
accepted:
10
05
2018
pubmed:
17
6
2018
medline:
14
3
2019
entrez:
17
6
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Debate continues about the optimal anesthetic management for patients undergoing endovascular treatment (ET) of acute ischemic stroke due to emergent large vessel occlusion. To compare, using current evidence, the clinical outcomes and procedural characteristics among patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA) and local or monitored anesthesia (non-GA). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available studies that involved the use of stent retrievers for ET (stentriever group). Additionally, we included studies that were published in 2015 and later, and compared the clinical outcomes among the studies using stentrievers or no stentrievers (pre-stentriever group). Outcome variables included functional independence (FI; modified Rankin Scale scores of 0-2), symptomatic hemorrhage, mortality, procedure duration, and vascular and respiratory complications. We calculated pooled odds ratios and 95% CIs using random-effects models. Sixteen studies (three randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and 13 non-randomized studies) were identified comprising 5836 patients. Although non-GA was associated with higher odds of 3-month FI (OR=1.57; 95% CI 1.17 to 2.10; P=0.003) and lower odds of 3-month mortality (OR=0.62; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; P=0.0006, substantial heterogeneity was noted across included trials. Sensitivity analyses of RCTs showed that non-GA was inversely associated with FI (OR=0.55; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.89; P=0.01; I Our updated meta-analysis demonstrates favorable results with non-GA, probably owing to inclusion of non-randomized studies. Recent single-center RCTs indicate that GA is associated with higher odds of FI at 3 months, while other outcomes are similar between the two groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29907575
pii: neurintsurg-2018-013916
doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-013916
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
107-113Informations de copyright
© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.