No abstract

Background: In ischemic stroke patients, studies have suggested that clinical outcomes following endovascular thrombectomy are worse after general anesthesia (GA) compared with conscious sedation (CS). Most data are from observational trials, which are prone to measure and unmeasure confounding. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of thrombectomy trials where patients were randomized to GA or CS, and compared efficacy and safety outcomes. Methods: The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing GA to CS in endovascular thrombectomy. Efficacy outcomes included successful recanalization (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b to 3), and good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 at 3 months. Safety outcomes included intracerebral hemorrhage and 3-month mortality. Results: Four studies were identified and included in the random effects meta-analysis. Patients treated with GA achieved a higher proportion of successful recanalization (odds ratio [OR]: 2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-3.62; P=0.005) and good functional outcome (OR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.13-2.59; P=0.01). For every 7.9 patients receiving GA, one more achieved good functional outcome compared with those receiving CS. There were no significant differences in intracerebral hemorrhage (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.20-1.85; P=0.38) or 3-month mortality (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.33-1.17; P=0.14) between GA and CS patients. Conclusions: In centers with high quality, specialized neuroanesthesia care, GA treated thrombectomy patients had superior recanalization rates and better functional outcome at 3 months than patients receiving CS.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Summary It is unknown whether systolic blood pressure augmentation during endovascular thrombectomy improves clinical outcomes. This pilot randomised controlled trial aimed to assess the feasibility of differential systolic blood pressure targeting during endovascular thrombectomy procedures for anterior circulation ischaemic stroke. Fifty‐one eligible patients fulfilling the national criteria for endovascular thrombectomy were randomly assigned to receive either standard or augmented systolic blood pressure management from the start of anaesthesia to recanalisation of the target vessel. Systolic blood pressure targets for the standard and augmented groups were 130–150 mmHg and 160–180 mmHg, respectively. The study achieved all feasibility targets, including a recruitment rate of 3.5 participants per week and median (IQR [range]) of mean systolic blood pressure separation between groups of 139 (135–143 [115–154]) vs. 167 (150–175 [113–188]) mmHg, p < 0.001. Data completeness was 99%. Independent functional recovery at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale 0, 1 or 2) was achieved in 30 (59%) patients, which is consistent with previously published data. There were no safety concerns with trial procedures. In conclusion, a large randomised controlled efficacy trial of standard vs. augmented systolic blood pressure management during endovascular thrombectomy is feasible.

Background: The perioperative use of vasoactive drugs is ubiquitous in clinical anaesthesia; yet, the drugs, doses, and haemodynamic targets used are highly variable. Our objectives were to determine whether the perioperative administration of vasoactive drugs reduces mortality, morbidity, and length of stay in adult patients (aged 16 yr or older) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for peer-reviewed RCTs with no language or date restrictions. Studies that assessed the intraoperative use of vasoactive drugs were included. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was performed. Risk of bias for each outcome measure was conducted. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) using the ManteleHaenszel random-effects model with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference using the inverse variance random-effects model with corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Results: Twenty-six studies (5561 participants) were included. There was no difference in mortality at the longest followup with an RR of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.63e1.12; P¼0.23). The intervention significantly reduced the number of patients with one or more postoperative complications; RR: 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66e0.88; P¼0.0002). Hospital length of stay was reduced by 0.91 days in the intervention group. Conclusions: This review is limited by the quality and sample size of individual studies, and the heterogeneity of the settings, interventions, and outcome measures. Perioperative administration of vasoactive drugs may reduce postoperative complications and hospital length of stay in adult patients having major abdominal surgery.

No abstract