Silvia Schönenberger

Importance: Optimal management of sedation and airway during thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke is controversial due to lack of evidence from randomized trials. Objective: To assess whether conscious sedation is superior to general anesthesia for early neurological improvement among patients receiving stroke thrombectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: SIESTA (Sedation vs Intubation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment), a single-center, randomized, parallel-group, open-label treatment trial with blinded outcome evaluation conducted at Heidelberg University Hospital in Germany (April 2014-February 2016) included 150 patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation, higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (>10), and isolated/combined occlusion at any level of the internal carotid or middle cerebral artery. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to an intubated general anesthesia group (n = 73) or a nonintubated conscious sedation group (n = 77) during stroke thrombectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was early neurological improvement on the NIHSS after 24 hours (0-42 [none to most severe neurological deficits; a 4-point difference considered clinically relevant]). Secondary outcomes were functional outcome by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) after 3 months (0-6 [symptom free to dead]), mortality, and peri-interventional parameters of feasibility and safety. Results: Among 150 patients (60 women [40%]; mean age, 71.5 years; median NIHSS score, 17), primary outcome was not significantly different between the general anesthesia group (mean NIHSS score, 16.8 at admission vs 13.6 after 24 hours; difference, -3.2 points [95% CI, -5.6 to -0.8]) vs the conscious sedation group (mean NIHSS score, 17.2 at admission vs 13.6 after 24 hour; difference, -3.6 points [95% CI, -5.5 to -1.7]); mean difference between groups, -0.4 (95% CI, -3.4 to 2.7; P = .82). Of 47 prespecified secondary outcomes analyzed, 41 showed no significant differences. In the general anesthesia vs the conscious sedation group, substantial patient movement was less frequent (0% vs 9.1%; difference, 9.1%; P = .008), but postinterventional complications were more frequent for hypothermia (32.9% vs 9.1%; P < .001), delayed extubation (49.3% vs 6.5%; P < .001), and pneumonia (13.7% vs 3.9%; P = .03). More patients were functionally independent (unadjusted mRS score, 0 to 2 after 3 months [37.0% in the general anesthesia group vs 18.2% in the conscious sedation group P = .01]). There were no differences in mortality at 3 months (24.7% in both groups). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation undergoing thrombectomy, conscious sedation vs general anesthesia did not result in greater improvement in neurological status at 24 hours. The study findings do not support an advantage for the use of conscious sedation. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02126085.

IMPORTANCE: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. DATA SOURCE: MEDLINE search for English-language articles published from January 1, 1980, to July 31, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: 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. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: 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. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: 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.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Optimal timing of tracheostomy in ventilated patients with severe stroke is unclear. We aimed to investigate feasibility, safety, and potential advantages of early tracheostomy in these intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, parallel-group, controlled, open, and outcome-masked pilot trial was conducted in neurological/neurosurgical ICUs of a university hospital. Patients with severe ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke and an estimated need for at least 2 weeks of ventilation were randomized to either early tracheostomy (within day 1-3 from intubation; early) or to standard tracheostomy (between day 7-14 from intubation if extubation could not be achieved or was not feasible; standard). The primary outcome was length of stay in the ICU; secondary outcomes were diverse aspects of the ICU course. RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomized and analyzed. No differences were observed with regard to the primary outcome length of stay in the ICU (median 18 [interquartile range 16-28] versus 17 [interquartile range 13-22] days, median difference: 1 [-2 to 6]; P=0.38) or to most secondary outcomes, including adverse effects. Instead, use of sedatives (62% versus 42% of ICU stay, median difference 17.5 [3.3-29.2]; P=0.02), ICU mortality (ICU deaths 3 [10%] versus 14 [47%]; P<0.01) and 6-month mortality (deaths 8 [27%] versus 18 [60%]; P=0.02) were lower in the early group than in the standard group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Early tracheostomy in ventilated intensive care stroke patients is feasible, and safe, and presumably reduces sedation need. Whether the suggested benefits in mortality and outcome truly exist has to be determined by a larger multicenter trial.

Background and Purpose: This study assessed the predictive performance and relative importance of clinical, multimodal imaging, and angiographic characteristics for predicting the clinical outcome of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. Methods: A consecutive series of 246 patients with acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who underwent endovascular treatment between April 2014 and January 2018 was analyzed. Clinical, conventional imaging (electronic Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, acute ischemic volume, site of vessel occlusion, and collateral score), and advanced imaging characteristics (CT-perfusion with quantification of ischemic penumbra and infarct core volumes) before treatment as well as angiographic (interval groin puncture-recanalization, modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score) and postinterventional clinical (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score after 24 hours) and imaging characteristics (electronic Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, final infarction volume after 18–36 hours) were assessed. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days (mRS-90) was used to measure patient outcome (favorable outcome: mRS-90 ≤2 versus unfavorable outcome: mRS-90 &gt;2). Machine-learning with gradient boosting classifiers was used to assess the performance and relative importance of the extracted characteristics for predicting mRS-90. Results: Baseline clinical and conventional imaging characteristics predicted mRS-90 with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.740 (95% CI, 0.733–0.747) and an accuracy of 0.711 (95% CI, 0.705–0.717). Advanced imaging with CT-perfusion did not improved the predictive performance (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, 0.747 [95% CI, 0.740–0.755]; accuracy, 0.720 [95% CI, 0.714–0.727]; P =0.150). Further inclusion of angiographic and postinterventional characteristics significantly improved the predictive performance (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, 0.856 [95% CI, 0.850–0.861]; accuracy, 0.804 [95% CI, 0.799–0.810]; P &lt;0.001). The most important parameters for predicting mRS 90 were National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score after 24 hours (importance =100%), premorbid mRS score (importance =44%) and final infarction volume on postinterventional CT after 18 to 36 hours (importance =32%). Conclusions: Integrative assessment of clinical, multimodal imaging, and angiographic characteristics with machine-learning allowed to accurately predict the clinical outcome following endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. Thereby, premorbid mRS was the most important clinical predictor for mRS-90, and the final infarction volume was the most important imaging predictor, while the extent of hemodynamic impairment on CT-perfusion before treatment had limited importance.