General Anesthesia versus Sedation, Both with Hemodynamic Control, during Intraarterial Treatment for Stroke: The...

It is speculated that the anesthetic strategy during endovascular therapy for stroke may have an impact on the outcome of the patients. The authors hypothesized that conscious sedation is associated with a better functional outcome 3 months after endovascular therapy for the treatment of stroke compared with general anesthesia.

In this single-blind, randomized trial, patients received either a standardized general anesthesia or a standardized conscious sedation. Blood pressure control was also standardized in both groups. The primary outcome measure was a modified Rankin score less than or equal to 2 (0 = no symptoms; 5 = severe disability) assessed 3 months after treatment. The main secondary outcomes were complications, mortality, reperfusion results, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scores at days 1 and 7.

Of 351 randomized patients, 345 were included in the analysis. The primary outcome occurred in 129 of 341 (38%) of the patients: 63 (36%) in the conscious sedation group and 66 (40%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.19]; P = 0.474). Patients in the general anesthesia group experienced more intraoperative hypo- or hypertensive episodes, while the cumulative duration was not different (mean ± SD, 36 ± 31 vs. 39 ± 25 min; P = 0.079). The time from onset and from arrival to puncture were longer in the general anesthesia group (mean difference, 19 min [i.e., -00:19] [95% CI, -0:38 to 0] and mean difference, 9 min [95% CI, -0:18 to -0:01], respectively), while the time from onset to recanalization was similar in both groups. Recanalization was more often successful in the general anesthesia group (144 of 169 [85%] vs. 131 of 174 [75%]; P = 0.021). The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was similar in both groups.

The functional outcomes 3 months after endovascular treatment for stroke were similar with general anesthesia and sedation. Our results, therefore, suggest that clinicians can use either approach.