Anesthetic management for large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke with tandem lesions

Here are the Anesthetic management for large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke with tandem lesions journals presenting the latest research across various disciplines. From social sciences to technology, each article is expected to provide valuable insights to our readers.

Anesthetic management for large vessel occlusion signs, anesthetic management for large vessel occlusion scale, anesthetic management pulmonary hypertension, anesthetic management of obstetric hemorrhage, tetralogy of fallot anesthetic management, anesthetic management for large vessel occlusion meaning, anesthetic management for aortic regurgitation, anesthetic management for obese patients.

Anesthetic management for large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke with tandem lesions

Background Endovascular therapy (EVT) stands as an established and effective intervention for acute ischemic stroke in patients harboring tandem lesions (TLs). However, the optimal anesthetic strategy for EVT in TL patients remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the impact of distinct anesthetic techniques on outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients presenting with TLs. Methods Patient-level data, encompassing cases from 16 diverse centers, were aggregated for individuals with anterior circulation TLs treated between January 2015 and December 2020. A stratification based on anesthetic technique was conducted to distinguish between general anesthesia (GA) and procedural sedation (PS). Multivariable logistic regression models were built to discern the association between anesthetic approach and outcomes, including the favorable functional outcome defined as 90-day modified Rankin Score (mRS) of 0-2, ordinal shift in mRS, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), any h emorrhage, successful recanalization (modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) score ≥2b), excellent recanalization (mTICI 3), first pass effect (FPE), early neurological improvement (ENI), door-to-groin and recanalization times, intrahospital mortality, and 90-day mortality. Results Among 691 patients from 16 centers, 595 patients (GA 38.7%, PS 61.3%) were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences noted in the door-to-groin time (80 (46-117.5) mins vs 54 (21-100), P=0.607) and groin to recanalization time (59 (39.5-85.5) mins vs 54 (38-81), P=0.836) among the groups. The odds of a favorable functional outcome (36.6% vs 52.6%; adjusted OR (aOR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.84, P=0.005) and a favorable shift in the 90-day mRS (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99, P=0.041) were lower in the GA group. No differences were noted for sICH (3.9% vs 4.7%, P=0.38), successful recanalization (89.1% vs 86.5%, P=0.13), excellent recanalization (48.5% vs 50.3%, P=0. 462), FPE (53.6% vs 63.4%, P=0.05), ENI (38.9% vs 38.8%, P=0.138), and 90-day mortality (20.3% vs 16.3%, P=0.525). An interaction was noted for favorable functional outcome between the type of anesthesia and the baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) (P=0.033), degree of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis (P<0.001), and ICA stenting (P<0.001), and intraparenchymal hematoma between the type of anesthesia and intravenous thrombolysis (P=0.019). In a subgroup analysis, PS showed better functional outcomes in patients with age ≤70 years, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score <15, and acute ICA stenting. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the preference for PS not only aligns with comparable procedural safety but is also associated with superior functional outcomes. These results prompt a re-evaluation of current anesthesia practices in EVT, urging clinicians to consider patient-specific characteristics when determining the optimal anesthetic strategy for this patient population. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025.

Authors : Farooqui M.; Galecio-Castillo M.; Hassan A.E.; Divani A.A.; Jumaa M.; Ribo M.; Petersen N.H.; Abraham M.G.; Fifi J.T.; Guerrero W.R.; Malik A.; Siegler J.E.; Nguyen T.N.; Sheth S.A.; Yoo A.J.; Linares G.; Janjua N.; Quispe-Orozco D.; Tekle W.G.; Sabbagh S.Y.; Zaidi S.F.; Olive Gadea M.; Prasad A.; Qureshi A.; De Leacy R.A.; Abdalkader M.; Salazar-Marioni S.; Soomro J.; Gordon W.; Turabova C.; Rodriguez-Calienes A.; Vivanco-Suarez J.; Mokin M.; Yavagal D.R.; Jovin T.G.; Ortega-Gutierrez S.

Source : BMJ Publishing Group