Salehani Arsalaan, Self Dwight, Agee Bonita, Refaey Karim, Elsayed Galal A, Chagoya Gustavo, Bernstock Joshua, Stetler William
Neurological Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, USA.
Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, USA.
Cureus. 2020 Nov 4;12(11):e11328. doi: 10.7759/cureus.11328.
Background Given recent technological advancements leading to better outcomes in endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS), updated guidelines recommend thrombectomy as the standard of care in acute large vessel occlusions. However, use of general anesthesia versus conscious sedation continues to be discussed. Two previous randomized trials have shown no significant difference between the use of conscious sedation compared with general anesthesia. Methods The authors performed a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients with acute ischemia who underwent intra-arterial thrombectomy between September 2014 and May 2020 at a Level 1 stroke center. Patient characteristics along with clinical and operative data were extracted. Frequency distributions of selected characteristics were obtained and statistical significance of any differences according to the mode of anesthesia was assessed. Results A total of 480 patients were included in this study, 257 underwent general anesthesia and 223 underwent conscious sedation. Length of stay (LOS) in the ICU nor length of hospital stay was significantly different between groups. Change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score from admission to discharge, procedure times, and discharge disposition were not found to be significantly associated with either group although there was a trend towards longer door to puncture time with general anesthesia. Discharge disposition was found to be significantly associated with admission NIHSS (p=0.04). There was a trend towards longer hospital stay in patients with worse admission NIHSS (p=0.09). Success of thrombectomy was not significantly different between both anesthesia groups (p=0.37). Conclusions This large, single-center retrospective cohort study echoes the results of two previous randomized controlled trials in demonstrating non-inferiority of general anesthesia versus conscious sedation in cases of intra-arterial thrombectomy for AIS. These results contrast those of previously published retrospective studies.
背景 鉴于近期技术进步使急性缺血性卒中(AIS)血管内治疗取得了更好的疗效,更新后的指南推荐将血栓切除术作为急性大血管闭塞的标准治疗方法。然而,全身麻醉与清醒镇静的使用仍在讨论中。之前的两项随机试验表明,清醒镇静与全身麻醉的使用之间没有显著差异。方法 作者对2014年9月至2020年5月在一家一级卒中中心接受动脉内血栓切除术的所有连续性急性缺血患者进行了回顾性分析。提取了患者特征以及临床和手术数据。获得选定特征的频率分布,并评估根据麻醉方式的任何差异的统计学意义。结果 本研究共纳入480例患者,257例接受全身麻醉,223例接受清醒镇静。两组间重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间和住院时间均无显著差异。从入院到出院的美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分变化、手术时间和出院处置情况在两组中均未发现与任何一组有显著相关性,尽管全身麻醉的穿刺时间有延长的趋势。发现出院处置与入院时的NIHSS显著相关(p = 0.04)。入院时NIHSS较差的患者住院时间有延长的趋势(p = 0.09)。两种麻醉组的血栓切除术成功率无显著差异(p = 0.37)。结论 这项大型单中心回顾性队列研究呼应了之前两项随机对照试验的结果,表明在AIS动脉内血栓切除术中,全身麻醉与清醒镇静相比不存在劣势。这些结果与之前发表的回顾性研究结果形成对比。