Anestesia general frente a no AG para trombectomía endovascular de ictus de la circulación posterior: análisis retrospectivo de 5 años del impacto en los resultados del paciente

IF 1.3 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
R.P. Sá, M. Beatriz Antunes, R. Torres, A.T. Cruz, A. Marinho, T. Meira, I. Cerqueira
{"title":"Anestesia general frente a no AG para trombectomía endovascular de ictus de la circulación posterior: análisis retrospectivo de 5 años del impacto en los resultados del paciente","authors":"R.P. Sá,&nbsp;M. Beatriz Antunes,&nbsp;R. Torres,&nbsp;A.T. Cruz,&nbsp;A. Marinho,&nbsp;T. Meira,&nbsp;I. Cerqueira","doi":"10.1016/j.redar.2026.502171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The optimal anesthesia strategy during endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for posterior circulation acute ischemic stroke (PC-AIS) remains unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a five-year retrospective cohort study of consecutive PC-AIS patients treated with EVT and categorized by anesthetic modality: general anesthesia (GA) or non-GA. The primary outcome was functional independence at 90 days, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2. Secondary outcomes included successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) and 3-month mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding factors.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 132 patients, 55 (41.7%) underwent EVT under GA. Good functional outcome was achieved in 61.5% of GA patients versus 47.9% of non-GA patients. However, after adjustment, GA was not independently associated with functional independence (adjusted OR: .72; 95% CI: .22-2.31; <em>P</em> =.571). Reperfusion rates were similar for both groups (successful reperfusion: GA 84.1 vs. non-GA 81.7%; <em>P</em>=.458) and mortality at 3 months did not differ significantly (GA: 18.2 vs. non-GA: 20.8%; adjusted OR: 2.41; 95% CI: .78-7.47; <em>P</em>=.127).</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>There is no significant difference in outcomes between patients with PC-AIS undergoing EVT with GA versus non-GA. These findings align with recent evidence, suggesting comparable functional, angiographic, and survival outcomes across anesthetic strategies, though limitations related to retrospective design and practice variability remain.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Anesthetic modality (GA vs. non-GA) does not significantly affect 3-month functional outcomes, successful reperfusion, or mortality during EVT for PC-AIS, supporting an individualized, patient- and procedure-based approach.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46479,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion","volume":"73 8","pages":"Article 502171"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034935626001386","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The optimal anesthesia strategy during endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for posterior circulation acute ischemic stroke (PC-AIS) remains unclear.

Methods

We conducted a five-year retrospective cohort study of consecutive PC-AIS patients treated with EVT and categorized by anesthetic modality: general anesthesia (GA) or non-GA. The primary outcome was functional independence at 90 days, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2. Secondary outcomes included successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) and 3-month mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding factors.

Results

Of 132 patients, 55 (41.7%) underwent EVT under GA. Good functional outcome was achieved in 61.5% of GA patients versus 47.9% of non-GA patients. However, after adjustment, GA was not independently associated with functional independence (adjusted OR: .72; 95% CI: .22-2.31; P =.571). Reperfusion rates were similar for both groups (successful reperfusion: GA 84.1 vs. non-GA 81.7%; P=.458) and mortality at 3 months did not differ significantly (GA: 18.2 vs. non-GA: 20.8%; adjusted OR: 2.41; 95% CI: .78-7.47; P=.127).

Discussion

There is no significant difference in outcomes between patients with PC-AIS undergoing EVT with GA versus non-GA. These findings align with recent evidence, suggesting comparable functional, angiographic, and survival outcomes across anesthetic strategies, though limitations related to retrospective design and practice variability remain.

Conclusion

Anesthetic modality (GA vs. non-GA) does not significantly affect 3-month functional outcomes, successful reperfusion, or mortality during EVT for PC-AIS, supporting an individualized, patient- and procedure-based approach.
非AG全身麻醉后循环肌凝块血管内血栓切除术:对患者预后影响的5年回顾性分析
后循环急性缺血性卒中(PC-AIS)血管内取栓术(EVT)的最佳麻醉策略尚不清楚。方法:我们对连续接受EVT治疗的PC-AIS患者进行了为期五年的回顾性队列研究,并根据麻醉方式进行了分类:全身麻醉(GA)或非全身麻醉。主要终点是90天的功能独立性,定义为修改的Rankin量表(mRS)评分0-2。次要结局包括再灌注成功(mTICI 2b-3)和3个月死亡率。采用多变量logistic回归对混杂因素进行校正。结果132例患者中,55例(41.7%)在GA下行EVT。61.5%的GA患者获得了良好的功能预后,而非GA患者的这一比例为47.9%。然而,调整后,GA与功能独立性没有独立相关(调整后OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.22 -2.31; P =.571)。两组再灌注率相似(再灌注成功:GA: 84.1 vs.非GA: 81.7%; P=.458), 3个月死亡率无显著差异(GA: 18.2 vs.非GA: 20.8%;调整OR: 2.41; 95% CI: 0.78 -7.47; P=.127)。PC-AIS患者行EVT合并GA与非GA的预后无显著差异。这些发现与最近的证据一致,表明不同麻醉策略的功能、血管造影和生存结果具有可比性,尽管与回顾性设计和实践可变性相关的局限性仍然存在。结论麻醉方式(GA与非GA)对PC-AIS患者EVT期间3个月的功能结局、再灌注成功或死亡率没有显著影响,支持个体化、基于患者和手术的方法。
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
1.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
113
审稿时长
82 days
×
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
小红书