↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
Title
Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2022
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013690.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renato Tosello, Rachel Riera, Giuliano Tosello, Caroline NB Clezar, Jorge E Amorim, Vladimir Vasconcelos, Benedito B Joao, Ronald LG Flumignan

Abstract

The use of mechanical thrombectomy to restore intracranial blood flow after proximal large artery occlusion by a thrombus has increased over time and led to better outcomes than intravenous thrombolytic therapy alone. Currently, the type of anaesthetic technique during mechanical thrombectomy is under debate as having a relevant impact on neurological outcomes. To assess the effects of different types of anaesthesia for endovascular interventions in people with acute ischaemic stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Specialised Register of Trials on 5 July 2022, and CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and seven other databases on 21 March 2022. We performed searches of reference lists of included trials, grey literature sources, and other systematic reviews.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials with a parallel design that compared general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia, conscious sedation anaesthesia, or monitored care anaesthesia for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischaemic stroke. We also included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, studies without a comparator group, and studies with a retrospective design. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The outcomes were assessed at different time periods, ranging from the onset of the stroke symptoms to 90 days after the start of the intervention. The main outcomes were functional outcome, neurological impairment, stroke-related mortality, all intracranial haemorrhage, target artery revascularisation status, time to revascularisation, adverse events, and quality of life. All included studies reported data for early (up to 30 days) and long-term (above 30 days) time points. We included seven trials with 982 participants, which investigated the type of anaesthesia for endovascular treatment in large vessel occlusion in the intracranial circulation. The outcomes were assessed at different time periods, ranging from the onset of stroke symptoms to 90 days after the procedure. Therefore, all included studies reported data for early (up to 30 days) and long-term (above 30 up to 90 days) time points. General anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia(early) We are uncertain about the effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcomes compared to non-general anaesthesia (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.31 to 0.31; P = 1.0; 1 study, 90 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in time to revascularisation from groin puncture until the arterial reperfusion (MD 2.91 minutes, 95% CI -5.11 to 10.92; P = 0.48; I² = 48%; 5 studies, 498 participants; very low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia may lead to no difference in neurological impairment up to 48 hours after the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.18 to 0.59; P = 0.52; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 982 participants; low-certainty evidence), and in stroke-related mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.84; P = 0.94; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 330 participants; low-certainty evidence), all intracranial haemorrhages (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29; P = 0.63; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 693 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to non-general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia may improve adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79; P = 0.02; I² = 71%; 2 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia improves target artery revascularisation compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18; P = 0.02; I² = 29%; 7 studies, 982 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no available data for quality of life. General anaesthesia versus non-general anaesthesia (long-term) There is no difference in general anaesthesia compared to non-general anaesthesia for dichotomous and continuous functional outcomes (dichotomous: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.58; P = 0.16; I² = 29%; 4 studies, 625 participants; low-certainty evidence; continuous: MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.06; P = 0.17; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 978 participants; low-certainty evidence). General anaesthesia showed no changes in stroke-related mortality compared to non-general anaesthesia (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.22; P = 0.44; I² = 12%; 6 studies, 843 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no available data for neurological impairment, all intracranial haemorrhages, target artery revascularisation status, time to revascularisation from groin puncture until the arterial reperfusion, adverse events (haemodynamic instability), or quality of life. Ongoing studies We identified eight ongoing studies. Five studies compared general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation anaesthesia, one study compared general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation anaesthesia plus local anaesthesia, and two studies compared general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia. Of these studies, seven plan to report data on functional outcomes using the modified Rankin Scale, five studies on neurological impairment, six studies on stroke-related mortality, two studies on all intracranial haemorrhage, five studies on target artery revascularisation status, four studies on time to revascularisation, and four studies on adverse events. One ongoing study plans to report data on quality of life. One study did not plan to report any outcome of interest for this review. In early outcomes, general anaesthesia improves target artery revascularisation compared to non-general anaesthesia with moderate-certainty evidence. General anaesthesia may improve adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in neurological impairment, stroke-related mortality, all intracranial haemorrhage and haemodynamic instability adverse events between groups with low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain whether general anaesthesia improves functional outcomes and time to revascularisation because the certainty of the evidence is very low. However, regarding long-term outcomes, general anaesthesia makes no difference to functional outcomes compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. General anaesthesia did not change stroke-related mortality when compared to non-general anaesthesia with low-certainty evidence. There were no reported data for other outcomes. In view of the limited evidence of effect, more randomised controlled trials with a large number of participants and good protocol design with a low risk of bias should be performed to reduce our uncertainty and to aid decision-making in the choice of anaesthesia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,005,142
of 21,777,067 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,677
of 12,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,888
of 231,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,777,067 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.