Intra-Arterial Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke Under General Anesthesia versus Monitored Anesthesia Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that intra-arterial recanalization therapy (IAT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is associated with worse clinical outcomes when performed under general anesthesia (GA) compared to local anesthesia, with or without conscious sedation. The reasons for this association have not been systematically studied. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 190 patients who underwent IAT for anterior circulation AIS from January 2008 to December 2012 at our institution. Baseline demographics, vessels involved, acute stroke treatment including intravenous tissue type plasminogen activator (tPA) use, use of GA vs. monitored anesthesia care (MAC), location of thrombus, recanalization grade, radiologic post-procedural intracerebral hemorrhage, and 30-day outcomes were collected. Relevant clinical time points were recorded. Detailed intra-procedural hemodynamics including maximum/minimum heart rate, systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, mean BP, use of pressors and episodes of hypotension were collected. Our study's outcomes were as follows: in-hospital mortality, 30-day good outcome (mRS ≤2), successful recanalization and radiologic post-procedural intracerebral hemorrhage. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients received GA and 99 patients received MAC. There was no significant difference in the NIHSS score between the two groups but the GA group had a higher number of ICA occlusions (31.9 vs. 18.2%, p = 0.043). The time from the start of anesthesia to incision (23.0 ± 12.5 min vs. 18.7 ± 11.3 min, p = 0.020) and the time from the start of anesthesia to recanalization (110 ± 57.2 vs. 92.3 ± 43.0, p = 0.045) was longer in the GA group. The time from incision to recanalization was not significantly different between the two groups. mRS 0-2 was achieved in 22.8% of patients in the MAC group compared to 14.9% in GA (p = 0.293). Higher mortality was seen in the GA group (25.8 vs. 13.3%, p = 0.040). Successful recanalization (TICI 2b-3) was similar between the GA and MAC (57.8 vs. 48.5%, p = 0.182) groups, but GA had a higher number of parenchymal hematomas (26.3 vs. 10.1%, p = 0.003). There was no difference in the intra-procedural hemodynamic variables between the GA and MAC groups. Anesthesia type was an independent predictor for mortality (along with age and initial NIHSS), and the only independent predictor for parenchymal hematomas, with MAC being protective for both. CONCLUSION: Our study has confirmed previous findings of GA being associated with poorer outcomes and higher mortality in patients undergoing IAT for AIS. Detailed analysis of intra-procedural hemodynamics did not reveal any significant difference between the two groups. Parenchymal hematoma was the major driver of the difference in outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».