Campbell, B. C. V. et al. (2018) Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Neurology, 17(1), pp. 47-53. (doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30407-6) This is the author's final accepted version.There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/149670/ variables. An alternative approach using propensity-score stratification was also used. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modeling with a random effect for trial incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.Findings: Of 1764 patients in 7 trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 who did not undergo the procedure and 2 with missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236/797 (30%) of endovascular patients were treated under GA. At baseline, GA patients were younger and had shorter time to randomisation but similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared to non-GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months versus standard care in both GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95%CI 1·09-2·11, p=0·014) and non-GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95%CI 1·75-3·10, p<0·001) patients. However, outcomes were significantly better for those treated under non-GA versus GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95%CI 1·14-2·04, p=0·004; propensitystratified cOR 1·44 95%CI 1·08-1·92, p=0·012). The risk of bias and variability among studies was assessed to be low.Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons. Funding:The HERMES collaboration was funded by an unrestricted grant from Medtronic to the University of Calgary. Research in contextEvidence before this study between abolition of the thrombectomy treatment effect in MR CLEAN and no effect in THRACE. Three single-centre randomised trials of general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation found either no difference in functional outcome between groups or a slight benefit of general anaesthesia. Added value of this studyThese data from contemporary, high quality randomised trials form the largest study to date of the association between general anesthesia and the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care. We used two different approaches to adjust for baseline imbalances (multivariable logistic regression and propensity-score stratification). We found that GA for endovascular thrombectomy, as practiced in contemporary clinical care across a wide range of expert centres during the rand...

SummaryBackgroundResults of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects.MethodsFOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762.FindingsBetween Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months.InterpretationFluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function.FundingUK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.

No abstract