Jadhav Ashutosh P, Bouslama Mehdi, Aghaebrahim Amin, Rebello Leticia C, Starr Matthew T, Haussen Diogo C, Ranginani Manasa, Whalin Matthew K, Jovin Tudor G, Nogueira Raul G
Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Department of Neurology Grady Memorial Hospital and Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
JAMA Neurol. 2017 Jun 1;74(6):704-709. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.0192.
No consensus regarding the ideal sedation treatment for stroke endovascular therapy has been reached, and practices remain largely based on local protocols and clinician preferences. Most studies have focused on anterior circulation strokes; therefore, little is known regarding the optimal anesthesia type for vertebrobasilar occlusion strokes.
To compare clinical and angiographic outcomes between monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) in patients presenting with vertebrobasilar occlusion strokes.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective, matched, case-control study of consecutive vertebrobasilar occlusion strokes treated with endovascular therapy at 2 academic institutions. The study took place between September 2005 and September 2015 at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Stroke Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and between September 2010 and September 2015 at the Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center at Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. Patients requiring emergent intubation prior to endovascular therapy were excluded. The remaining patients were categorized into (1) MAC and (2) elective intubation for the procedure (elective GA). Patients who converted from MAC to GA during the procedure were included in the MAC group. The 2 groups were matched for age, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and glucose levels. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared.
The primary outcome measure was the shift in the degree of disability among the 2 groups as measured by the modified Rankin scale at 90 days.
A total of 215 patients underwent endovascular therapy for vertebrobasilar occlusion strokes during the study period. Thirty-nine patients were excluded owing to emergent pre-endovascular therapy intubation. Sixty-three patients had MAC (36%) and 113 patients had GA (64%). The conversion rate from MAC to GA was 13% (n = 8). After matching, 61 pairs of patients (n = 122) underwent primary analysis. The 2 groups were well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range, 60-75 years) in the MAC group vs 67 years (interquartile range, 55.5-78.5 years) in the GA group (P = .83). Fifty-four percent of the patients in the MAC group were men vs 41% in the GA group (P = .44). When compared with the elective GA group, patients who underwent the procedure with MAC had similar rates of successful reperfusion, good clinical outcomes, hemorrhagic complications, and mortality. The modality of anesthesia was not associated with any significant changes in the modified Rankin scale score distribution (MAC: OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.80-2.90; P = .19).
In endovascular therapy for acute posterior circulation stroke, MAC is feasible and appears to be as safe and effective as GA. Future clinical trials are warranted to confirm our findings.
对于卒中血管内治疗的理想镇静方案尚未达成共识,目前的实践很大程度上仍基于当地的方案和临床医生的偏好。大多数研究集中在前循环卒中;因此,关于椎基底动脉闭塞性卒中的最佳麻醉类型知之甚少。
比较接受监测麻醉护理(MAC)和全身麻醉(GA)的椎基底动脉闭塞性卒中患者的临床和血管造影结果。
设计、设置和参与者:对在2个学术机构接受血管内治疗的连续性椎基底动脉闭塞性卒中患者进行回顾性、匹配、病例对照研究。该研究于2005年9月至2015年9月在宾夕法尼亚州匹兹堡的匹兹堡大学医学中心卒中研究所进行,以及于2010年9月至2015年9月在佐治亚州亚特兰大的格雷迪纪念医院马库斯卒中与神经科学中心进行。排除血管内治疗前需要紧急插管的患者。其余患者分为(1)MAC组和(2)手术中选择性插管(选择性GA)组。术中从MAC转换为GA的患者纳入MAC组。两组在年龄、基线美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分和血糖水平方面进行匹配。比较基线特征和结果。
主要结局指标是两组在90天时通过改良Rankin量表测量的残疾程度变化。
在研究期间,共有215例患者接受了椎基底动脉闭塞性卒中的血管内治疗。39例患者因血管内治疗前紧急插管而被排除。63例患者接受MAC(36%),113例患者接受GA(64%)。从MAC转换为GA的比例为13%(n = 8)。匹配后,61对患者(n = 122)进行了初步分析。两组在基线特征方面平衡良好。MAC组的中位年龄为69岁(四分位间距,60 - 75岁),而GA组为67岁(四分位间距,55.5 - 78.5岁)(P = 0.83)。MAC组54%的患者为男性,而GA组为41%(P = 0.44)。与选择性GA组相比,接受MAC手术的患者在成功再灌注率、良好临床结局、出血并发症和死亡率方面相似。麻醉方式与改良Rankin量表评分分布的任何显著变化均无关联(MAC:比值比,1.52;95%置信区间,0.80 - 2.90;P = 0.19)。
在急性后循环卒中的血管内治疗中,MAC是可行的,并且似乎与GA一样安全有效。未来有必要进行临床试验以证实我们的发现。