Abstract 187: Impact of General Anesthesia on Safety and Outcomes in the Endovascular Arm of IMS III
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Use of general anesthesia (GA) during endovascular therapy (ET) of AIS patients is controversial with some suggestion of worse outcomes and death. The IMS III trial permitted the study of the effect of GA in a prospectively collected data set to test two hypotheses: (1) intubation is associated with poorer outcomes and (2) there is no increase in the risk of SAH or sICH with local anesthesia (LA). Methods: IMS III was a randomized trial of IV tPA +/- ET in patients presenting within 3hrs of AIS onset. In addition to demographic and outcomes data (mRS, ICH, etc.), information was collected on GA use or not within 7hrs of stroke onset. A good outcome was defined as mRS≤2 at 90 days. A multivariable analysis adjusting for dichotomized NIHSS (8-19 vs. ≥20), age and time from onset to groin puncture was performed. Additional analyses of reasons for intubation are ongoing and will be part of the presentation. Results: Four-hundred-thirty-four patients were randomized to ET, 269(62%) with LA and 147(33.9%) with GA. They were evenly matched in demographics, medical comorbidities, time to tPA, time to groin puncture, 40minute post IV tPA bolus SBP and occlusion location/side. The baseline NIHSS were slightly lower in the LA group (median 16 vs. 18). The GA group was less likely to achieve a good outcome (RR 0.64, CI 0.49-0.84, p=0.001) and had a greater risk of in-hospital death (RR 3.11, CI 1.86-5.20, p<0.0001). There was an increased risk of SAH in the GA group (RR 1.79, CI 1.04-3.08, p=0.0364) but no statistically significant difference in sICH (RR 1.69, CI 0.79-3.61, p=0.18). The multivariable analysis confirmed the negative association between GA and good outcomes (RR 0.68, CI 0.52-0.90, p=0.0027). Conclusions: In the IMS III trial there was an association with worse neurological outcomes and increased mortality with ET under GA. Also, there was an association between GA and an increased risk of SAH. Although the reasons for these associations are not clear, these data support the use of LA when possible during ET.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".