The Effect of Anesthetic Agent and Mean Arterial Pressure on Functional Outcome After General Anesthesia for Endovascular Thrombectomy.

IF 2.3 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Danielle Crimmins, Elizabeth Ryan, Darshan Shah, Thar-Nyan Lwin, Steven Ayotte, Kendal Redmond, David Highton
{"title":"The Effect of Anesthetic Agent and Mean Arterial Pressure on Functional Outcome After General Anesthesia for Endovascular Thrombectomy.","authors":"Danielle Crimmins, Elizabeth Ryan, Darshan Shah, Thar-Nyan Lwin, Steven Ayotte, Kendal Redmond, David Highton","doi":"10.1097/ANA.0000000000000897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal general anesthetic (GA) technique for stroke patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (ET) is unclear. We compared favorable outcomes and mortality in patients receiving propofol or volatile GA during ET and assessed associations between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-three patients with anterior circulation stroke who received propofol or volatile GA during ET between February 2015 and February 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Ninety-day modified Rankin scores were compared and mortality was adjusted for intravenous thrombolysis and diabetes. We performed ordinal logistic regression analyses containing MAP time/exposure thresholds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no difference in the rate of favorable outcome (modified Rankin scores 0-2) in the volatile and propofol groups (48.8% vs. 55.8%, respectively; P =0.5). Ninety-day mortality was lower in patients receiving propofol (11.5%) than in those receiving volatile GA (29.3%) (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.11 to 0.94; P =0.03); this mortality benefit was greater in patients that did not receive intravenous thrombolysis before ET (odds ratio for survival, 6; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 31.74). There was no difference in MAP between groups and a (nonsignificant) trend towards the benefit of MAP <90 mm Hg but not <70 mm Hg.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Favorable outcome rates were similar in stroke patients receiving propofol or volatile GA during ET. Propofol was associated with lower mortality, an effect magnified in patients that did not receive intravenous thrombolysis. MAP time/exposure thresholds were associated with outcome but independent of the anesthetic agent. Our data suggest that a difference in outcome related to an anesthetic agent may exist; this hypothesis needs to be tested in a prospective study.</p>","PeriodicalId":16550,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":"29-36"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ANA.0000000000000897","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The optimal general anesthetic (GA) technique for stroke patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (ET) is unclear. We compared favorable outcomes and mortality in patients receiving propofol or volatile GA during ET and assessed associations between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and outcome.

Methods: Ninety-three patients with anterior circulation stroke who received propofol or volatile GA during ET between February 2015 and February 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Ninety-day modified Rankin scores were compared and mortality was adjusted for intravenous thrombolysis and diabetes. We performed ordinal logistic regression analyses containing MAP time/exposure thresholds.

Results: There was no difference in the rate of favorable outcome (modified Rankin scores 0-2) in the volatile and propofol groups (48.8% vs. 55.8%, respectively; P =0.5). Ninety-day mortality was lower in patients receiving propofol (11.5%) than in those receiving volatile GA (29.3%) (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.11 to 0.94; P =0.03); this mortality benefit was greater in patients that did not receive intravenous thrombolysis before ET (odds ratio for survival, 6; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 31.74). There was no difference in MAP between groups and a (nonsignificant) trend towards the benefit of MAP <90 mm Hg but not <70 mm Hg.

Conclusions: Favorable outcome rates were similar in stroke patients receiving propofol or volatile GA during ET. Propofol was associated with lower mortality, an effect magnified in patients that did not receive intravenous thrombolysis. MAP time/exposure thresholds were associated with outcome but independent of the anesthetic agent. Our data suggest that a difference in outcome related to an anesthetic agent may exist; this hypothesis needs to be tested in a prospective study.

麻醉药物和平均动脉压对血管内取栓术全麻后功能结局的影响。
背景:对脑卒中患者行血管内取栓术(ET)的最佳全麻(GA)技术尚不清楚。我们比较了在ET期间接受异丙酚或挥发性GA的患者的有利结果和死亡率,并评估了平均动脉压(MAP)与结果之间的关系。方法:2015年2月至2018年2月,93例在ET期间接受异丙酚或挥发性GA治疗的前循环卒中患者纳入回顾性研究。比较90天修正Rankin评分,并调整静脉溶栓和糖尿病的死亡率。我们进行了包含MAP时间/暴露阈值的有序逻辑回归分析。结果:挥发油组和异丙酚组的良好转归率(修正Rankin评分0-2)无差异(分别为48.8%和55.8%;P = 0.5)。接受异丙酚治疗的患者90天死亡率(11.5%)低于接受挥发性GA治疗的患者(29.3%)(优势比0.32;95%置信区间为0.11 ~ 0.94;P = 0.03);在ET前未接受静脉溶栓治疗的患者死亡率获益更大(生存优势比,6;95%置信区间为1.13 ~ 31.74)。结论:脑卒中患者在ET期间接受异丙酚或挥发性GA治疗的良好转转率相似。异丙酚与较低的死亡率相关,在未接受静脉溶栓治疗的患者中,这一效应被放大。MAP时间/暴露阈值与结果相关,但与麻醉剂无关。我们的数据表明,可能存在与麻醉剂相关的结果差异;这一假设需要在前瞻性研究中进行验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
10.80%
发文量
119
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology (JNA) is a peer-reviewed publication directed to an audience of neuroanesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, neurosurgical monitoring specialists, neurosurgical support staff, and Neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit personnel. The journal publishes original peer-reviewed studies in the form of Clinical Investigations, Laboratory Investigations, Clinical Reports, Review Articles, Journal Club synopses of current literature from related journals, presentation of Points of View on controversial issues, Book Reviews, Correspondence, and Abstracts from affiliated neuroanesthesiology societies. JNA is the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care, the Neuroanaesthesia and Critical Care Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the Association de Neuro-Anesthésiologie Réanimation de langue Française, the Wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskreis Neuroanästhesie der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizen, the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutschsprachiger Neuroanästhesisten und Neuro-Intensivmediziner, the Korean Society of Neuroanesthesia, the Japanese Society of Neuroanesthesia and Critical Care, the Neuroanesthesiology Chapter of the Colegio Mexicano de Anesthesiología, the Indian Society of Neuroanesthesiology and Critical Care, and the Thai Society for Neuroanesthesia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信