Search

Background: Endovascular treatment in large artery occlusion stroke reduces disability. However, the impact of anesthesia type on clinical outcomes remains uncertain. Methods: We compared consecutive patients in the Swiss Stroke Registry with anterior circulation stroke receiving endovascular treatment with or without general anesthesia (GA). The primary outcome was disability on the modified Rankin Scale after 3 months, analyzed with ordered logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included dependency or death (modified Rankin Scale score ≥ 3), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale after 24 hours, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage with ≥ 4 points worsening on National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale within 7 days, and mortality. Coarsened exact matching and propensity score matching were performed to adjust for indication bias. Results: One thousand two hundred eighty-four patients (GA: n=851, non-GA: n=433) from 8 Stroke Centers were included. Patients treated with GA had higher modified Rankin Scale scores after 3 months than patients treated without GA, in the unmatched (odds ratio [OR], 1.75 [1.42–2.16]; P P =0.020), and the propensity score matching analysis (n=568; OR, 1.61 [1.20–2.15]; P =0.001). In the coarsened exact matching analysis, there were no significant differences in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale after 1 day (estimated coefficient 2.61 [0.59–4.64]), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 1.06 [0.30–3.75]), dependency or death (OR, 1.42 [0.91–2.23]), or mortality (OR, 1.65 [0.94–2.89]). In the propensity score matching analysis, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale after 24 hours (estimated coefficient, 3.40 [1.76–5.04]), dependency or death (OR, 1.49 [1.07–2.07]), and mortality (OR, 1.65 [1.11–2.45]) were higher in the GA group, whereas symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly (OR, 1.77 [0.73–4.29]). Conclusions: This large study showed worse functional outcome after endovascular treatment of anterior circulation stroke with GA than without GA in a real-world setting. This finding appears to be independent of known differences in patient characteristics between groups.

Background: Data on endovascular therapy (EVT) in patients with stroke attributable to CeAD is scarce. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies comparing EVT to intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in CeAD-patients and compared EVT to IVT with regard to 3-month outcome and complications. Additionally, we included data of IVT-/EVT-treated CeAD-patients from a Swiss multicenter IVT-/EVT registry based cohort study. Methods: We systematically searched the pubmed® database to identify all existing studies comparing IVT to EVT in CeAD-patients. Studies were eligible if IVT-treated CeAD- patients were compared to EVT-treated patients, and 3-month outcomes were reported as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Outcome measures in this study were favorable 3-month outcome (i.e. mRS 0-2), excellent 3-month outcome (i.e. mRS 0-1), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and death. Additionally, in a Swiss multicenter IVT-/EVT registry based cohort-study (SWISS) we identified all consecutive patients with ischemic stroke attributable to CeAD and included outcome data of these patients in our analyses. In a meta-analysis across all studies, we compared EVT to IVT with regard to primary and secondary outcome measures using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model. Results: The literature search yielded 388 results. We identified 7 eligible studies for a systematic comparison of EVT versus IVT. Data on 62 patients from the SWISS cohort were included as an additional study. In total, we compared EVT (n=102) versus IVT (n=110) in 212 CeAD-patients. With regard to the occurrence of mRS 0-2, there was no significant difference between both treatment groups (OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.57-1.88)). Separate Data on mRS 0-1 was available in 5 studies (OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.39-2.00)). There was no difference between groups with regard to death at 3 months (OR 0.66 (0.22-1.94)) which was separately reported in 6 studies. For sICH there were too few data (n=5 patients) available for meta-analysis. Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of all existing studies comparing EVT to IVT in CeAD patients there was no clear signal of superiority of EVT. Further investigation of EVT with up-to-date devices is warranted.