Dexmedetomidine: a safe alternative to general anesthesia for endovascular stroke treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There have been reports that general anesthesia (GA) is associated with worse clinical outcomes during intra-arterial treatment (IAT) for stroke. Since traditional sedatives carry the risk of respiratory depression, this retrospective study was designed to compare sedation with the α2 adrenergic agonist dexmedetomidine (DEX) and with GA for IAT procedures. METHODS: We reviewed our institutional endovascular database of 216 consecutive patients who received DEX or GA for IAT of anterior circulation strokes between September 2010 and July 2012. The demographic, radiographic and angiographic variables between the GA and DEX groups were compared, as well as hemodynamic changes during the procedure. Binary logistic regression models were generated to determine the independent predictors of a favorable outcome (defined as a modified Rankin Score at 90 days of 0-2). RESULTS: 83 patients had IAT performed under DEX sedation. Their demographic characteristics were similar to those given GA except that they were older and had less severe strokes. The GA group experienced greater variations in blood pressure, more hypotension with induction (54% vs 28%, p<0.001) and greater use of vasopressors (79% vs 58%, p<0.001). In our regression models, independent predictors of a good outcome included age, NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score (ASPECTS), successful reperfusion, lower baseline systolic blood pressure and higher blood pressures during the procedure. DEX was associated with a good outcome when models included NIHSS as the sole measure of stroke severity but was equivalent to GA when ASPECTS was added to the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: DEX can be safely administered in patients undergoing endovascular reperfusion therapies. Further study is required to determine if outcomes are different among sedatives used during such procedures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".