From the Departments of Neuroradiology (J.A.R.P., M.B., M.A.M.) and Neurology (S.S., S.N., P.A.R., W.H., J.B.), Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Radiology. 2018 Mar;286(3):1016-1021. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017171002. Epub 2017 Oct 30.
Purpose To investigate whether the sedation mode (ie, conscious sedation [CS] vs general anesthesia [GA]) affects the angiographic workflow applied for treatment of endovascular stroke in a post hoc analysis of a recent randomized controlled trial, Sedation versus Intubation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment (SIESTA). Materials and Methods SIESTA was an institutional review board-approved, single-center, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label treatment trial with a blinded end-point evaluation to compare GA with CS for treatment of endovascular stroke in 73 and 77 patients, respectively. By using descriptive data from SIESTA, the influence of the mode of sedation on angiographic workflow during treatment for endovascular stroke (eg, procedure times) and other radiologic outcome parameters (eg, radiation exposure) were analyzed. The time between angiographic key steps for patients who underwent GA and CS was evaluated with t tests. P values were corrected for false discovery rate. Results The median time from groin puncture to first intracranial flow restoration with CS was 47 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 29-70 minutes), and for GA, it was 41 minutes (IQR, 28-60 minutes) (P = .546). The median time to the end of angiography with CS was 104 minutes (IQR, 75-150 minutes), and with GA, it was 73 minutes (IQR, 53-125 minutes) (P = .052). Fluoroscopy time with CS was 49 minutes (IQR, 25-85 minutes), and with GA, it was 35 minutes (IQR, 20-74 minutes) (P = .098). The times were comparable in both groups for these measures. The time from groin puncture to the final angiographic result with GA, at 72 minutes (IQR, 45-109 minutes) was shorter than that with CS, at 98 minutes (IQR, 64-135 minutes) (P = .048). Conclusion This post hoc analysis of the single-center SIESTA trial revealed that time from groin puncture to final angiographic result was shorter with patients under GA than that with patients under CS. RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
通过对最近一项随机对照试验(Sedation versus Intubation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment,SIESTA)的事后分析,探讨镇静模式(即,清醒镇静[CS]与全身麻醉[GA])是否会影响血管内治疗卒中的血管造影工作流程。
SIESTA 是一项机构审查委员会批准的、单中心、前瞻性、随机、平行组、开放性标签治疗试验,采用盲法终点评估,比较 GA 与 CS 分别治疗 73 例和 77 例血管内卒中患者。本研究使用 SIESTA 的描述性数据,分析了镇静模式对血管内治疗卒中的血管造影工作流程(如,手术时间)和其他放射学结果参数(如,辐射暴露)的影响。采用 t 检验评估接受 GA 和 CS 的患者之间从血管造影关键步骤到关键步骤的时间。对 P 值进行了错误发现率校正。
CS 组从腹股沟穿刺到首次颅内血流恢复的中位时间为 47 分钟(四分位距[IQR],29-70 分钟),GA 组为 41 分钟(IQR,28-60 分钟)(P =.546)。CS 组完成血管造影的中位时间为 104 分钟(IQR,75-150 分钟),GA 组为 73 分钟(IQR,53-125 分钟)(P =.052)。CS 组透视时间为 49 分钟(IQR,25-85 分钟),GA 组为 35 分钟(IQR,20-74 分钟)(P =.098)。这些指标在两组间时间相似。GA 组从腹股沟穿刺到最终血管造影结果的时间为 72 分钟(IQR,45-109 分钟),短于 CS 组的 98 分钟(IQR,64-135 分钟)(P =.048)。
本研究对单中心 SIESTA 试验的事后分析显示,与 CS 组患者相比,GA 组患者从腹股沟穿刺到最终血管造影结果的时间更短。RSNA,2017 在线补充材料可为此文章提供。