4.7 Article

The effect of anesthetic management during intra-arterial therapy for acute stroke in MR CLEAN

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 87, 期 7, 页码 656-664

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002976

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Heart Foundation
  2. AngioCare BV
  3. Covidien/EV3
  4. MED-AC GmbH/LAMEPRO
  5. Penumbra Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of the current study was to assess the influence of anesthetic management on the effect of treatment in the Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN). Methods: MR CLEAN was amulticenter, randomized, open-label trial of intra-arterial therapy (IAT) vs no IAT. The intended anesthetic management at the start of the procedure was used for this post hoc analysis. The primary effect parameter was the adjusted common odds ratio (acOR) for a shift in direction of a better outcome on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days, estimated with multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis, which included a term for general anesthesia (GA). Results: GA was associated with significant (p=0.011) effect modification, resulting in estimated decrease of 51%(95% confidence interval [CI] 31%-86%) in treatment effect compared to non-GA. We found a shift in the distribution on the mRS in favor of non-GA compared to control group (acOR 2.18 [95% CI 1.49-3.20]). The shift in distribution between GA and control group was in a similar direction (acOR 1.12 [95% CI 0.71-1.78]) with loss of statistical significance. Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, we found that the type of anesthetic management influences outcome following IAT. Only treatment without general anesthesia was associated with a significant treatment benefit in MR CLEAN. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing IAT, mRS scores at 90 days improve only in patients treated without GA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据