Schönenberger Silvia, Uhlmann Lorenz, Hacke Werner, Schieber Simon, Mundiyanapurath Sibu, Purrucker Jan C, Nagel Simon, Klose Christina, Pfaff Johannes, Bendszus Martin, Ringleb Peter A, Kieser Meinhard, Möhlenbruch Markus A, Bösel Julian
Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
JAMA. 2016 Nov 15;316(19):1986-1996. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.16623.
Optimal management of sedation and airway during thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke is controversial due to lack of evidence from randomized trials.
To assess whether conscious sedation is superior to general anesthesia for early neurological improvement among patients receiving stroke thrombectomy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: SIESTA (Sedation vs Intubation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment), a single-center, randomized, parallel-group, open-label treatment trial with blinded outcome evaluation conducted at Heidelberg University Hospital in Germany (April 2014-February 2016) included 150 patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation, higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (>10), and isolated/combined occlusion at any level of the internal carotid or middle cerebral artery.
Patients were randomly assigned to an intubated general anesthesia group (n = 73) or a nonintubated conscious sedation group (n = 77) during stroke thrombectomy.
Primary outcome was early neurological improvement on the NIHSS after 24 hours (0-42 [none to most severe neurological deficits; a 4-point difference considered clinically relevant]). Secondary outcomes were functional outcome by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) after 3 months (0-6 [symptom free to dead]), mortality, and peri-interventional parameters of feasibility and safety.
Among 150 patients (60 women [40%]; mean age, 71.5 years; median NIHSS score, 17), primary outcome was not significantly different between the general anesthesia group (mean NIHSS score, 16.8 at admission vs 13.6 after 24 hours; difference, -3.2 points [95% CI, -5.6 to -0.8]) vs the conscious sedation group (mean NIHSS score, 17.2 at admission vs 13.6 after 24 hour; difference, -3.6 points [95% CI, -5.5 to -1.7]); mean difference between groups, -0.4 (95% CI, -3.4 to 2.7; P = .82). Of 47 prespecified secondary outcomes analyzed, 41 showed no significant differences. In the general anesthesia vs the conscious sedation group, substantial patient movement was less frequent (0% vs 9.1%; difference, 9.1%; P = .008), but postinterventional complications were more frequent for hypothermia (32.9% vs 9.1%; P < .001), delayed extubation (49.3% vs 6.5%; P < .001), and pneumonia (13.7% vs 3.9%; P = .03). More patients were functionally independent (unadjusted mRS score, 0 to 2 after 3 months [37.0% in the general anesthesia group vs 18.2% in the conscious sedation group P = .01]). There were no differences in mortality at 3 months (24.7% in both groups).
Among patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation undergoing thrombectomy, conscious sedation vs general anesthesia did not result in greater improvement in neurological status at 24 hours. The study findings do not support an advantage for the use of conscious sedation.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02126085.
由于缺乏随机试验的证据,急性缺血性卒中血栓切除术期间镇静和气道的最佳管理存在争议。
评估在接受卒中血栓切除术的患者中,清醒镇静在早期神经功能改善方面是否优于全身麻醉。
设计、地点和参与者:SIESTA(血管内卒中治疗的镇静与插管)是一项在德国海德堡大学医院进行的单中心、随机、平行组、开放标签治疗试验,采用盲法评估结果(2014年4月至2016年2月),纳入了150例前循环急性缺血性卒中患者,美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分较高(>10),且颈内动脉或大脑中动脉任何水平存在孤立/合并闭塞。
在卒中血栓切除术期间,患者被随机分配至插管全身麻醉组(n = 73)或非插管清醒镇静组(n = 77)。
主要结局是24小时后NIHSS的早期神经功能改善(0 - 42[无至最严重神经功能缺损;4分差异被认为具有临床相关性])。次要结局是3个月后改良Rankin量表(mRS)的功能结局(0 - 6[无症状至死亡])、死亡率以及可行性和安全性的围手术期参数。
在150例患者中(60名女性[40%];平均年龄71.5岁;NIHSS评分中位数17),全身麻醉组(入院时平均NIHSS评分16.8,24小时后为13.6;差异为 - 3.2分[95%CI, - 5.6至 - 0.8])与清醒镇静组(入院时平均NIHSS评分17.2,24小时后为13.6;差异为 - 3.6分[95%CI, - 5.5至 - 1.7])之间的主要结局无显著差异;组间平均差异为 - 0.4(95%CI, - 3.4至2.7;P = 0.82)。在分析的47项预先设定的次要结局中,41项无显著差异。在全身麻醉组与清醒镇静组中,明显的患者移动较少见(0%对9.1%;差异为9.1%;P = 0.008),但低温(32.9%对9.1%;P < 0.001)、延迟拔管(49.3%对6.5%;P < 0.001)和肺炎(13.7%对3.9%;P = 0.03)等围手术期并发症在全身麻醉组更常见。更多患者在功能上独立(3个月后未调整的mRS评分0至2[全身麻醉组为37.0%,清醒镇静组为18.2%;P = 0.01])。3个月时死亡率无差异(两组均为24.7%)。
在接受前循环急性缺血性卒中血栓切除术的患者中,清醒镇静与全身麻醉相比,24小时时神经功能状态并未有更大改善。研究结果不支持使用清醒镇静具有优势。
clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT02126085。