Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 25, 2025
Optimized Management of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Published on: January 18, 2018
Anesthesia modality in endovascular treatment for distal medium vessel occlusion stroke: intention-to-treat
Mahmoud H Mohammaden1,2,3, Mohamed F Doheim4, Hend Abdelhamid1,2
1Neurology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Background:
The optimal anesthesia modality during endovascular treatment (EVT) for distal medium vessel occlusion (DMVO) stroke is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the association of the anesthesia modality with procedural and clinical outcomes following EVT for DMVO stroke.
Methods:
This is a multicenter retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. Patients were included if they had DMVO involving the middle cerebral artery-M3/4, anterior cerebral artery-A2/3, or posterior cerebral artery-P1/P2-3, and underwent EVT. The cohort was divided into two groups, general anesthesia (GA) and non-general anesthesia (non-GA), and compared based on the intention-to-treat principle as primary analysis. We used propensity scores to balance the two groups. The primary outcome was the shift in the degree of disability as measured by the 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Secondary outcomes included successful reperfusion, as well as excellent (mRS 0-1) and good (mRS 0-2) clinical outcomes at 90 days. Safety measures included procedural complications, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and 90-day mortality.
Results:
Among 366 DMVO thrombectomies, 61 matched pairs were eligible for analysis. Median age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score as well as other baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were balanced between both groups. The GA group had no difference in the overall degree of disability (common OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.86, P=0.67) compared with the non-GA arm. Likewise, the GA group had comparable rates of successful reperfusion (OR 2.38, 95% CI 0.80 to 7.07, P=0.12), good/excellent clinical outcomes (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.96, P=0.79/(OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.81, P=0.41), procedural complications (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.16, P>0.99), sICH (OR 3.24, 95% CI 0.83 to 12.68, P=0.09), and 90-day mortality (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.27, P=0.52) compared with the non-GA group.
Conclusions:
In patients with DMVO, our study showed that GA and non-GA groups had similar procedural and clinical outcomes, as well as safety measures. Further larger controlled studies are warranted.
