Influence of Anesthesia Type on Outcomes after Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Meta-Analysis
10.5469/neuroint.2019.00045
- Author:
Chulho KIM
1
;
Sung Eun KIM
;
Jin Pyeong JEON
Author Information
1. Department of Neurology, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea.
- Publication Type:Meta-Analysis
- Keywords:
Anesthesia, General;
Stroke
- MeSH:
Anesthesia;
Anesthesia, General;
Conscious Sedation;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Intracranial Hemorrhages;
Methods;
Mortality;
Odds Ratio;
Pneumonia;
Population Characteristics;
Publication Bias;
Stroke
- From:Neurointervention
2019;14(1):17-26
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To assess clinical and angiographic outcomes after endovascular treatment (EVT) in ischemic stroke patients according to anesthesia types (general anesthesia vs. conscious sedation). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review through an online data base between January 1990 and September 2017 was performed. A fixed effect model was used in cases of <50% heterogeneity. The primary outcomes were good clinical outcome at the 3-month follow-up and successful recanalization. A meta-regression analysis was done to estimate primary outcomes of log odds ratio (OR) on onset-to-puncture time (OTP) differences. Publication bias was determined using Begg’s funnel plot and additional the Trim and Fill method. RESULTS: Sixteen articles including 2,662 patients (general anesthesia, n=1,275; conscious sedation, n=1,387) were included. General anesthesia significantly decreased good outcomes than conscious sedation (OR, 0.564; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.354–0.899). However, outcomes did not differ significantly in randomized controlled trials (RCTs; OR, 1.101; 95% CI, 0.395–3.071). Anesthesia type was not associated with successful recanalization (OR, 0.985; 95% CI, 0.787–1.233). General anesthesia increased the risk of mortality (OR, 1.532; 95% CI, 1.187–1.976) and pneumonia (OR, 1.613; 95% CI, 1.172–2.221), but not symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 1.125; 95% CI, 0.767–1.652). The meta-regression analysis showed no linear relationship between OTP differences and log OR of good outcome (coefficient, 0.0004; P=0.95) or successful recanalization (coefficient, 0.0005; P=0.94), respectively. CONCLUSION: General anesthesia seemed to be associated with adverse clinical outcome after EVT. However, its efficacy was not demonstrated in RCTs. Successful recanalization did not differ according to anesthesia type. Studies using individual patient data based on further RCTs are necessary to elucidate anesthesia effect on procedural and clinical outcomes.
