Endovascular Treatment of Stroke and Anesthesia Technique: What Is the Best Approach, According to the Literature?

IF 3 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Federica Arturi, Gabriele Melegari, Fabio Gazzotti, Elisabetta Bertellini, Alberto Barbieri
{"title":"Endovascular Treatment of Stroke and Anesthesia Technique: What Is the Best Approach, According to the Literature?","authors":"Federica Arturi, Gabriele Melegari, Fabio Gazzotti, Elisabetta Bertellini, Alberto Barbieri","doi":"10.3390/neurolint17080115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>Endovascular thrombectomy has become a mainstay in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusion. Among the multiple factors that influence outcomes, the choice of anesthetic technique-general anesthesia (GA), conscious sedation (CS), or local anesthesia (LA)-remains controversial. This narrative review aims to critically examine and synthesize current evidence comparing the efficacy and safety of different anesthetic strategies in endovascular stroke treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A structured search of the PubMed<sup>®</sup> database was conducted using the terms \"stroke treatment\", \"endovascular stroke treatment\", \"anesthesia\", \"general anesthesia\", \"conscious sedation\", and \"local anesthesia\". The search focused on clinical trials involving human subjects published in English. Studies were included if they compared at least two anesthetic techniques during thrombectomy and reported outcomes such as neurological recovery, mortality, or complication rates. Reviews, case reports, and animal studies were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Several randomized controlled trials and observational studies show comparable functional outcomes between GA and CS, though CS may confer advantages in early neurological recovery and reduced complications. Local anesthesia, though less studied, may offer favorable outcomes in selected patients. General anesthesia appears to be associated with greater hemodynamic variability and a higher risk of post-procedural infections, particularly in unsuccessful interventions. Maintaining stable blood pressure and minimizing ventilation duration are crucial to improving patient prognosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While both GA and CS are viable options during thrombectomy, CS and LA may provide a safer profile in selected patients by preserving hemodynamic stability and reducing infectious risk. Personalized anesthetic strategies and further high-quality trials are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":19130,"journal":{"name":"Neurology International","volume":"17 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12389025/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint17080115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/objectives: Endovascular thrombectomy has become a mainstay in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusion. Among the multiple factors that influence outcomes, the choice of anesthetic technique-general anesthesia (GA), conscious sedation (CS), or local anesthesia (LA)-remains controversial. This narrative review aims to critically examine and synthesize current evidence comparing the efficacy and safety of different anesthetic strategies in endovascular stroke treatment.

Methods: A structured search of the PubMed® database was conducted using the terms "stroke treatment", "endovascular stroke treatment", "anesthesia", "general anesthesia", "conscious sedation", and "local anesthesia". The search focused on clinical trials involving human subjects published in English. Studies were included if they compared at least two anesthetic techniques during thrombectomy and reported outcomes such as neurological recovery, mortality, or complication rates. Reviews, case reports, and animal studies were excluded.

Results: Several randomized controlled trials and observational studies show comparable functional outcomes between GA and CS, though CS may confer advantages in early neurological recovery and reduced complications. Local anesthesia, though less studied, may offer favorable outcomes in selected patients. General anesthesia appears to be associated with greater hemodynamic variability and a higher risk of post-procedural infections, particularly in unsuccessful interventions. Maintaining stable blood pressure and minimizing ventilation duration are crucial to improving patient prognosis.

Conclusions: While both GA and CS are viable options during thrombectomy, CS and LA may provide a safer profile in selected patients by preserving hemodynamic stability and reducing infectious risk. Personalized anesthetic strategies and further high-quality trials are warranted.

脑卒中的血管内治疗和麻醉技术:根据文献,什么是最好的方法?
背景/目的:血管内取栓术已成为治疗大血管闭塞引起的急性缺血性脑卒中的主要方法。在影响预后的多种因素中,麻醉技术的选择——全麻(GA)、清醒镇静(CS)或局部麻醉(LA)——仍然存在争议。这篇叙述性综述旨在批判性地检查和综合目前的证据,比较不同麻醉策略在血管内卒中治疗中的有效性和安全性。方法:使用“脑卒中治疗”、“血管内脑卒中治疗”、“麻醉”、“全身麻醉”、“清醒镇静”和“局部麻醉”等术语对PubMed®数据库进行结构化搜索。搜索的重点是用英语发表的涉及人类受试者的临床试验。如果研究在取栓过程中比较了至少两种麻醉技术,并报告了神经恢复、死亡率或并发症发生率等结果,则纳入研究。综述、病例报告和动物研究被排除在外。结果:一些随机对照试验和观察性研究显示,GA和CS之间的功能结果相当,尽管CS可能在早期神经恢复和减少并发症方面具有优势。局部麻醉,虽然研究较少,可能提供有利的结果,在选定的患者。全身麻醉似乎与更大的血流动力学变异性和更高的术后感染风险有关,特别是在不成功的干预中。维持血压稳定和减少通气时间对改善患者预后至关重要。结论:虽然GA和CS在取栓过程中都是可行的选择,但CS和LA可以通过保持血流动力学稳定性和降低感染风险来为选定的患者提供更安全的概况。个性化的麻醉策略和进一步的高质量试验是必要的。
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
Neurology International
Neurology International CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
69
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信