Effect of General Anaesthesia versus Conscious Sedation on Clinical and Procedural Outcome in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Stroke Treatment: A Matched-Pair Analysis

Abstract

Introduction: General anaesthesia (GA) during mechanical thrombectomy (MT) might lead to an inferior clinical outcome compared to conscious sedation (CS). It was hypothesised that using CS might avoid a critical drop in cerebral perfusion, shorten the time of the intervention and therefore might result in better clinical outcome. In this study, we compared the procedural and clinical results of patients who underwent MT under GA or CS at two tertiary neuro-vascular centres on the basis of a matched-pair analysis. Methods: Using a matched-pair approach, we compared the data of 56 patients that were treated under CS at centre A (n = 28) with selected patients who were treated under GA at the centre B (n = 28). Patients were matched for age, sex, site of vessel occlusion, NIHSS at admission (±3 points), time from symptom onset to initial stroke imaging, intravenous-lysis and co-morbidities. All patients had an ASPECT-score of ≥8. To exclude the effect of technical failures, only patients with successful recanalization of the occluded vessel (TICI 2b and 3) were included into the study. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with early good clinical outcome after MT, defined by a modified Ranking Scale (mRS)-score ≤2 at discharge. Secondary endpoints were the time from symptom onset to the start of the procedure, the duration of the procedure and the rate of procedural complications. Results: There were no differences concerning gender, age, the site of vessel occlusion and the degree of stroke severity at baseline. The proportion of patients with an early good clinical outcome (mRS ≤2 at discharge) was 60.4% (17/28) in both groups. The time from symptom onset to the start of the procedure was shorter at centre B, while the duration of the procedure was significantly faster at A, resulting in an overall time from symptom onset to complete recanalization of 152.2 ± 68.0 min for patients treated at centre A and 171.1 ± 43.5 min for patients at centre B (ns). Conclusion: Our study revealed no differences in the investigated clinical outcome for patients undergoing endovascular stroke treatment under GA versus CS.