Interventional Neuroradiology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
Interventional Neuroradiology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2022 Mar;14(3):221-226. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017360. Epub 2021 Mar 23.
The optimal anesthetic modality for endovascular treatment (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is undetermined. Comparisons of general anesthesia (GA) with composite non-GA cohorts of conscious sedation (CS) and local anesthesia (LA) without sedation have provided conflicting results. There has been emerging interest in assessing whether LA alone may be associated with improved outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate clinical and procedural outcomes comparing LA with CS and GA.
We reviewed the literature for studies reporting outcome variables in LA versus CS and LA versus GA comparisons. The primary outcome was 90 day good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of ≤2). Secondary outcomes included mortality, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, excellent functional outcome (mRS score ≤1), successful reperfusion (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) >2b), procedural time metrics, and procedural complications. Random effects meta-analysis was performed on unadjusted and adjusted data.
Eight non-randomized studies of 7797 patients (2797 LA, 2218 CS, and 2782 GA) were identified. In the LA versus GA comparison, no statistically significant differences were found in unadjusted analyses for 90 day good functional outcome or mortality (OR=1.22, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.76, p=0.3 and OR=0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07, p=0.15, respectively) or in the LA versus CS comparison (OR=1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.71, p=0.53 and OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.24, p=0.47, respectively). There was a tendency towards achieving excellent functional outcome (mRS ≤1) in the LA group versus the GA group (OR=1.44, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.08, p=0.05, I=70%). Analysis of adjusted data demonstrated a tendency towards higher odds of death at 90 days in the GA versus the LA group (OR=1.24, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.54, p=0.05, I=0%).
LA without sedation was not significantly superior to CS or GA in improving outcomes when performing EVT for AIS. However, the quality of the included studies impaired interpretation, and inclusion of an LA arm in future well designed multicenter, randomized controlled trials is warranted.
急性缺血性脑卒中(AIS)血管内治疗(EVT)的最佳麻醉方式仍未确定。全身麻醉(GA)与复合非 GA 组(镇静性清醒镇静(CS)和无镇静局部麻醉(LA))的比较结果存在冲突。目前人们对评估单独使用 LA 是否可能与改善结局相关产生了兴趣。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估比较 LA 与 CS 和 GA 的临床和程序结局。
我们检索了报道 LA 与 CS 和 LA 与 GA 比较中结局变量的研究文献。主要结局是 90 天的良好功能结局(改良 Rankin 量表(mRS)评分≤2)。次要结局包括死亡率、症状性颅内出血、良好功能结局(mRS 评分≤1)、成功再灌注(血栓切除术脑梗死(TICI)>2b)、程序时间指标和程序并发症。对未调整和调整数据进行了随机效应荟萃分析。
共纳入了 7797 例患者的 8 项非随机研究(LA 组 2797 例、CS 组 2218 例和 GA 组 2782 例)。在 LA 与 GA 的比较中,未调整分析显示 90 天的良好功能结局或死亡率无统计学差异(OR=1.22,95%CI 0.84 至 1.76,p=0.3 和 OR=0.83,95%CI 0.64 至 1.07,p=0.15),LA 与 CS 的比较也无统计学差异(OR=1.14,95%CI 0.76 至 1.71,p=0.53 和 OR=0.88,95%CI 0.62 至 1.24,p=0.47)。与 GA 组相比,LA 组在实现良好功能结局(mRS≤1)方面有一定趋势(OR=1.44,95%CI 1.00 至 2.08,p=0.05,I=70%)。调整数据的分析表明,GA 组 90 天死亡率的优势比有升高趋势(OR=1.24,95%CI 1.00 至 1.54,p=0.05,I=0%)。
在进行 AIS 的 EVT 时,LA 不伴镇静并不显著优于 CS 或 GA 来改善结局。然而,纳入研究的质量降低了解释能力,需要在未来的精心设计的多中心、随机对照试验中纳入 LA 臂。