Cargando…
Conscious sedation compared to general anesthesia for intracranial mechanical thrombectomy: A meta‐analysis
INTRODUCTION: Endovascular therapy is the standard of care for severe acute ischemic stroke caused by large‐vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, but there is a debate on the optimal anesthetic approach during this therapy. Meta‐analyses of observational studies suggest that general anesthes...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33960706 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.2161 |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: Endovascular therapy is the standard of care for severe acute ischemic stroke caused by large‐vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, but there is a debate on the optimal anesthetic approach during this therapy. Meta‐analyses of observational studies suggest that general anesthesia increases disability and death compared with conscious sedation However, their results are conflicting. This meta‐analysis study was performed to assess the relationship between the effects of general anesthesia compared to conscious sedation during endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: Through a systematic literature search up to August 2020, 18 studies included 4,802 subjects at baseline with endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke and reported a total of 1,711 subjects using general anesthesia and 1,961 subjects using conscious sedation were found. They recorded relationships between the effects of general anesthesia compared to conscious sedation during endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke. Odds ratio (OR) or Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated between the effect of general anesthesia compared to conscious sedation during endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke using the dichotomous or contentious methods with a random or fixed‐effect model. RESULTS: No significant difference were found between general anesthesia and conscious sedation during the endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke in functional independence at 90 days (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.44–1.40, p = 40); successful recanalization at 24 hr (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.62–2.41, p = 55); mortality at 90 days (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.83–2.24, p = .22); interventional complication (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.76–2.02, p = .40); symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41–0.99, p = .05); aspiration pneumonia (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.58–1.58, p = .87); and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score after 24 hr (MD, 0.38; 95% CI, −1.15–1.91, p = .62); with relative relationship favoring general anesthesia only in decreasing the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: General anesthesia has no independent relationship compared to conscious sedation during the endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke with a relative relationship favoring general anesthesia only in decreasing the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. This relationship encouraged us to recommend either anesthetic strategy during the endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke with no possible fear of higher complication. |
---|