| 1. |
- Löwhagen Hendén, Pia, et al.
(författare)
-
Off-hour admission and impact on neurological outcome in endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : Wiley. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 36:2, s. 208-214
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2018 The Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd Background and Purpose: In the new era of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke, one of the main predictors of good neurological outcome is a short time interval from stroke onset to recanalization of the occluded vessel. In this study, we examined the effect of on-hour vs off-hour admittance on the time intervals from stroke onset to recanalization in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT). Methods: One-hundred-ninety-eight patients receiving EVT for anterior AIS between 2007 and 2016 were included. Time of day and weekday for stroke admittance were recorded as well as several time intervals. Age, sex, co-morbidities, admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), intraprocedural blood pressure, blood glucose, modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia score (mTICI) and neurological outcome at 3months, measured as modified Rankin Scale (mRS), were registered. On-hour was defined as 8am-4pm weekdays, and off-hour as weekdays outside these hours and weekends. Results: The time interval from CT (computed tomography) to recanalization was longer during off-hours, while no difference was seen in the time interval from stroke onset to CT. No statistically significant difference was seen in neurological outcome between the on- and off-hour groups in a univariate analysis. Conclusions: Stroke admittance during off-hours is associated with longer time interval from CT examination to vessel recanalization. The study highlights the need of logistic improvement and probably more resources off-hour in order to deliver an effective stroke care around the clock.
|
|
| 2. |
- Schönenberger, Silvia, et al.
(författare)
-
Association of General Anesthesia vs Procedural Sedation With Functional Outcome Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Undergoing Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JAMA. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 1538-3598 .- 0098-7484. ; 322:13, s. 1283-1293
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- General anesthesia during thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke has been associated with poor neurological outcome in nonrandomized studies. Three single-center randomized trials reported no significantly different or improved outcomes for patients who received general anesthesia compared with procedural sedation.To detect differences in functional outcome at 3 months between patients who received general anesthesia vs procedural sedation during thrombectomy for anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke.MEDLINE search for English-language articles published from January 1, 1980, to July 31, 2019.Randomized clinical trials of adults with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of at least 10 and anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke assigned to receive general anesthesia or procedural sedation during thrombectomy.Individual patient data were obtained from 3 single-center, randomized, parallel-group, open-label treatment trials with blinded end point evaluation that met inclusion criteria and were analyzed using fixed-effects meta-analysis.Degree of disability, measured via the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range 0-6; lower scores indicate less disability), analyzed with the common odds ratio (cOR) to detect the ordinal shift in the distribution of disability over the range of mRS scores.A total of 368 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.5 [12.9] years; 163 [44.3%] women; median [interquartile range] National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 17 [14-21]) were included in the analysis, including 183 (49.7%) who received general anesthesia and 185 (50.3%) who received procedural sedation. The mean 3-month mRS score was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.5-3.1) in the general anesthesia group vs 3.2 (95% CI, 3.0-3.5) in the procedural sedation group (difference, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.03-0.83]; cOR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.09-2.29]; P=.02). Among prespecified adverse events, only hypotension (decline in systolic blood pressure of more than 20% from baseline) (80.8% vs 53.1%; OR, 4.26 [95% CI, 2.55-7.09]; P<.001) and blood pressure variability (systolic blood pressure >180 mm Hg or <120 mm Hg) (79.7 vs 62.3%; OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.49-3.93]; P<.001) were significantly more common in the general anesthesia group.Among patients with acute ischemic stroke involving the anterior circulation undergoing thrombectomy, the use of protocol-based general anesthesia, compared with procedural sedation, was significantly associated with less disability at 3 months. These findings should be interpreted tentatively, given that the individual trials examined were single-center trials and disability was the primary outcome in only 1 trial.
|
|
