Abstract
Introduction:
There is no definitive evidence currently to guide the choice between general anesthesia (GA) over conscious sedation (CS) for patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT). As MT outcomes are highly time-sensitive especially in the early time window, we aim to evaluate work-flow metrics and outcome differences between the two approaches in routine clinical practice at a Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC).
Methods:
From 2/2015-9/2018, 329 consecutive MT patients were included from a large retrospective CSC database. In late 2017, we implemented a first-choice GA protocol at our CSC from a first choice CS for MT. Baseline characteristics, work-flow metrics and outcomes measures: mRS at discharge, mRS last follow-up (median, IQR 184 days, 37.25-202.5), radiological hemorrhagic conversion (rHT) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) defined as rHT with post-MT (4-24 hours) NIHSS worsening ≥4, were examined. Multivariate logistic regression model was used to compare workflow and outcomes in GA vs. CS patients.
Results:
82 (25.2%) patients received GA and 246 (74.8%) received CS. Baseline characteristics show significantly higher baseline HTN (p .043) and posterior circulation strokes (p .02) in GA patients. Compared to CS, patients undergoing GA had significantly longer procedure times 54±35 vs. 37±22min (OR .98, 95%CI .97-.996) but no difference in onset- or door-to-puncture times. Both had similar first pass success ~57% vs. 53% (p .59), number of attempts 1(1-2) vs. 1(1-2) (p .94) and rate of TICI 2b-3 ~87% vs. 84% (p .85). On multivariate regression, there was no significant difference in outcome measures between GA and CS: rHT (OR 1.1, 95%CI .64-1.9), sICH (OR 1.15, 95%CI .41-3.2), mRS at discharge (OR .75, 95%CI .176-3.22) and mRS at last follow-up (OR 1.05, 95%CI .53-2.08).
Conclusion:
In routine clinical practice, compared to CS, patients who underwent GA for MT had no difference in clinical outcomes, despite longer procedure times.