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.

Keywords:
Intra-arterial therapy, General anesthesia, Monitored anesthesia care, Hemodynamics, Hypotension, Outcomes
1.
Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP Jr, Bruno A, Connors JJ, Demaerschalk BM, et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; Council on Clinical Cardiology: Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2013;44:870-947.
2.
Abou-Chebl A, Lin R, Hussain MS, et al: Conscious sedation versus general anesthesia during endovascular therapy for acute anterior circulation stroke: preliminary results from a retrospective, multicenter study. Stroke 2010;41:1175-1179.
3.
Jumaa MA, Zhang F, Ruiz-Ares G, et al: Comparison of safety and clinical and radiographic outcomes in endovascular acute stroke therapy for proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion with intubation and general anesthesia versus the nonintubated state. Stroke 2010;41:1180-1184.
4.
Nichols C, Carrozzella J, Yeatts S, et al: Is periprocedural sedation during acute stroke therapy associated with poorer functional outcomes? J Neurointerv Surg 2010;2:67-70.
5.
Davis MJ, Menon BK, Baghirzada LB, et al: Anesthetic management and outcome in patients during endovascular therapy for acute stroke. Anesthesiology 2012;116:396-405.
6.
Hassan AE, Chaudhry SA, Zacharatos H: Increased rate of aspiration pneumonia and poor discharge outcome among acute ischemic stroke patients following intubation for endovascular treatment. Neurocrit Care 2012;16:246-250.
7.
Molina CA, Selim MH: General or local anesthesia during endovascular procedures: sailing quiet in the darkness or fast under a daylight storm. Stroke 2010;41:2720-2721.
8.
Alexandrov AV, Sharma VK, Lao AY, Tsivgoulis G, Malkoff MD, Alexandrov AW: Reversed Robin Hood syndrome in acute ischemic stroke patients. Stroke 2007;38:3045-3048.
9.
Yoo AJ, Simonsen CZ, Prabhakaran S, Chaudhry ZA, Issa MA, Fugate JE, et al: Refining angiographic biomarkers of revascularization: improving outcome prediction after intra-arterial therapy. Stroke 2013;44:2509-2512.
10.
Larrue V, von Kummer RR, Muller A, Bluhmki E: Risk factors for severe hemorrhagic transformation in ischemic stroke patients treated with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator: a secondary analysis of the European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study (ECASS II). Stroke 2001;32:438-441.
11.
Avitsian R, Somal J: Anesthetic management for intra-arterial therapy in stroke. Curr Opin Anesthesiol 2012;25:523-532.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.