General anesthesia versus nongeneral anesthesia during endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThis study compares the safety and efficacy of general anesthesia (GA) and nongeneral anesthesia (non‐GA) on functional outcomes in patients receiving endovascular therapy for ischemic stroke.MethodsAll available studies on the anesthetic management of patients with acute ischemic stroke in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase were included. We also compared the clinical outcomes in the studies with subgroup analyses of the occlusion site (anterior vs. posterior circulation) and preretriever group versus retriever group. Functional independence, mortality, successful recanalization, hemodynamic instability, intracerebral hemorrhage, and respiratory complications were considered primary or secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 24,606 patients in 60 studies were included. GA had a lower risk of 90‐day functional independence (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.77), higher risk of 90‐day mortality (OR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.45), and successful reperfusion (OR = 1.18; 95% CI 1.94 to 6.82). However, there were no differences in functional independence and mortality between GA and non‐GA at 90 days after the procedure.ConclusionThe study shows poorer results in the GA group, which may be due to the inclusion of nonrandomized studies. However, analysis of the RCTs suggested that the outcomes do not differ between the two groups (GA vs. non‐GA). Thus, general anesthesia is as safe as nongeneral anesthesia under standardized management.