Background: and Purpose Anesthesia regimen in patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is still an unresolved issue. Methods: We compared the effect of anesthesia regimen using data from the German Stroke Registry-Endovascular Treatment (GSR-ET) between June 2015 and December 2019. Degree of disability was rated by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and good outcome was defined as mRS 0–2. Successful reperfusion was assumed when the modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale was 2b–3. Results: Out of 6,635 patients, 67.1% (n=4,453) patients underwent general anesthesia (GA), 24.9% (n=1,650) conscious sedation (CS), and 3.3% (n=219) conversion from CS to GA. Rate of successful reperfusion was similar across all three groups (83.0% vs. 84.2% vs. 82.6%, P=0.149). Compared to the CA-group, the GA-group had a delay from admission to groin (71.0 minutes vs. 61.0 minutes, P<0.001), but a comparable interval from groin to flow restoration (41.0 minutes vs. 39.0 minutes). The CS-group had the lowest rate of periprocedural complications (15.0% vs. 21.0% vs. 28.3%, P<0.001). The CS-group was more likely to have a good outcome at follow-up (42.1% vs. 34.2% vs. 33.5%, P<0.001) and a lower mortality rate (23.4% vs. 34.2% vs. 26.0%, P<0.001). In multivariable analysis, GA was associated with reduced achievement of good functional outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.94; P=0.004) and increased mortality (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.64; P<0.001). Subgroup analysis for anterior circulation strokes (n=5,808) showed comparable results. Conclusions We provide further evidence that CS during MT has advantages over GA in terms of complications, time intervals, and functional outcome.

Background: and Purpose This study aimed to investigate the effect of endovascular treatment (EVT, with or without intravenous thrombolysis [IVT]) versus IVT alone on outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and intracranial large vessel occlusion (LVO) attributable to cervical artery dissection (CeAD). Methods: This multinational cohort study was conducted based on prospectively collected data from the EVA-TRISP (EndoVAscular treatment and ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients) collaboration. Consecutive patients (2015–2019) with AIS-LVO attributable to CeAD treated with EVT and/or IVT were included. Primary outcome measures were (1) favorable 3-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–2) and (2) complete recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scale 2b/3). Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (OR [95% CI]) from logistic regression models were calculated (unadjusted, adjusted). Secondary analyses were performed in the patients with LVO in the anterior circulation (LVOant) including propensity score matching. Results: Among 290 patients, 222 (76.6%) had EVT and 68 (23.4%) IVT alone. EVT-treated patients had more severe strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, median [interquartile range]: 14 [10–19] vs. 4 [2–7], P<0.001). The frequency of favorable 3-month outcome did not differ significantly between both groups (EVT: 64.0% vs. IVT: 86.8%; ORadjusted 0.56 [0.24–1.32]). EVT was associated with higher rates of recanalization (80.5% vs. 40.7%; ORadjusted 8.85 [4.28–18.29]) compared to IVT. All secondary analyses showed higher recanalization rates in the EVT-group, which however never translated into better functional outcome rates compared to the IVT-group. Conclusion We observed no signal of superiority of EVT over IVT regarding functional outcome in CeAD-patients with AIS and LVO despite higher rates of complete recanalization with EVT. Whether pathophysiological CeAD-characteristics or their younger age might explain this observation deserves further research.