Anaesthesia modality on endovascular therapy outcomes in patients with large infarcts: a post hoc analysis of the ANGEL-ASPECT trial.

IF 2.6 1区 医学 Journal of Investigative Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1136/svn-2024-003320
Fa Liang, Kangda Zhang, Youxuan Wu, Xinyan Wang, Xuan Hou, Yun Yu, Yunzhen Wang, Mengxing Wang, Yuesong Pan, Xiaochuan Huo, Ruquan Han, Zhongrong Miao
{"title":"Anaesthesia modality on endovascular therapy outcomes in patients with large infarcts: a post hoc analysis of the ANGEL-ASPECT trial.","authors":"Fa Liang, Kangda Zhang, Youxuan Wu, Xinyan Wang, Xuan Hou, Yun Yu, Yunzhen Wang, Mengxing Wang, Yuesong Pan, Xiaochuan Huo, Ruquan Han, Zhongrong Miao","doi":"10.1136/svn-2024-003320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Endovascular therapy (EVT) now penetrates the once obscure realm of large infarct core volume acute ischaemic stroke (LICV-AIS). This research aimed to investigate the potential correlation between different anaesthetic approaches and post-EVT outcomes in LICV-AIS patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between October 2020 and May 2022, the China ANGEL-Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score (ASPECT) trial studied patients with LICV-AIS, randomly assigning them to the best medical management (BMM) or BMM with EVT. This post hoc subgroup analysis categorised subjects receiving BMM with EVT into general anaesthesia (GA) and non-GA groups based on anaesthesia type. We applied multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between anaesthesia during EVT and patient functional outcomes, as measured by the modified Rankin scale (mRS), in addition to the occurrence of complications. Further adjustment for selection bias was achieved through propensity score matching (PSM).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 230 patients with LICV-AIS were enrolled (GA 84 vs Non-GA 146). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the proportion of patients who achieved an mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days (27.4% for the GA group vs 31.5% for the non-GA group, p=0.51). However, the GA group had significantly longer median surgical times (142 min vs 122 min, p=0.03). Furthermore, GA was associated with an increased risk of postoperative pneumonia (adjusted OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.98). The results of PSM analysis agreed with the results of the multivariate regression analysis. No significant difference in intracranial haemorrhage incidence or mortality rate was observed between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This post hoc analysis of subgroups of the ANGEL-ASPECT trial suggested that there may be no significant association between the choice of anaesthesia and neurological outcomes in LICV-AIS patients. However, compared with non-GA, GA prolongs the duration of EVT and is associated with a greater postoperative pneumonia risk.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04551664.</p>","PeriodicalId":48733,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2024-003320","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Endovascular therapy (EVT) now penetrates the once obscure realm of large infarct core volume acute ischaemic stroke (LICV-AIS). This research aimed to investigate the potential correlation between different anaesthetic approaches and post-EVT outcomes in LICV-AIS patients.

Methods: Between October 2020 and May 2022, the China ANGEL-Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score (ASPECT) trial studied patients with LICV-AIS, randomly assigning them to the best medical management (BMM) or BMM with EVT. This post hoc subgroup analysis categorised subjects receiving BMM with EVT into general anaesthesia (GA) and non-GA groups based on anaesthesia type. We applied multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between anaesthesia during EVT and patient functional outcomes, as measured by the modified Rankin scale (mRS), in addition to the occurrence of complications. Further adjustment for selection bias was achieved through propensity score matching (PSM).

Results: In total, 230 patients with LICV-AIS were enrolled (GA 84 vs Non-GA 146). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the proportion of patients who achieved an mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days (27.4% for the GA group vs 31.5% for the non-GA group, p=0.51). However, the GA group had significantly longer median surgical times (142 min vs 122 min, p=0.03). Furthermore, GA was associated with an increased risk of postoperative pneumonia (adjusted OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.98). The results of PSM analysis agreed with the results of the multivariate regression analysis. No significant difference in intracranial haemorrhage incidence or mortality rate was observed between the groups.

Conclusion: This post hoc analysis of subgroups of the ANGEL-ASPECT trial suggested that there may be no significant association between the choice of anaesthesia and neurological outcomes in LICV-AIS patients. However, compared with non-GA, GA prolongs the duration of EVT and is associated with a greater postoperative pneumonia risk.

Trial registration number: NCT04551664.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
麻醉方式对大面积脑梗塞患者血管内治疗效果的影响:ANGEL-ASPECT 试验的事后分析。
目的:目前,血管内治疗(EVT)已进入大梗死核心容积急性缺血性卒中(LICV-AIS)这一曾经默默无闻的领域。本研究旨在探讨不同麻醉方法与 LICV-AIS 患者 EVT 后疗效之间的潜在相关性:2020年10月至2022年5月期间,中国ANGEL-Alberta卒中项目早期CT评分(ASPECT)试验对LICV-AIS患者进行了研究,随机分配患者接受最佳医疗管理(BMM)或BMM加EVT。这项事后亚组分析根据麻醉类型将接受BMM加EVT的受试者分为全身麻醉(GA)组和非GA组。我们应用多变量逻辑回归评估了EVT期间麻醉与患者功能预后(以改良Rankin量表(mRS)衡量)以及并发症发生率之间的关系。通过倾向评分匹配(PSM)进一步调整了选择偏差:共有230名LICV-AIS患者入选(GA 84 vs Non-GA 146)。两组患者在90天时mRS评分达到0-2分的比例无明显差异(GA组为27.4%,非GA组为31.5%,P=0.51)。然而,GA 组的中位手术时间明显更长(142 分钟 vs 122 分钟,P=0.03)。此外,GA 与术后肺炎风险增加有关(调整后 OR 2.03,95% CI 1.04 至 3.98)。PSM 分析结果与多变量回归分析结果一致。两组间颅内出血发生率和死亡率无明显差异:对ANGEL-ASPECT试验亚组的事后分析表明,麻醉选择与LICV-AIS患者的神经系统预后之间可能没有显著关联。然而,与非GA相比,GA延长了EVT的持续时间,并与更大的术后肺炎风险相关:NCT04551664.
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Investigative Medicine
Journal of Investigative Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNALMEDICINE, RESE-MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Journal of Investigative Medicine (JIM) is the official publication of the American Federation for Medical Research. The journal is peer-reviewed and publishes high-quality original articles and reviews in the areas of basic, clinical, and translational medical research. JIM publishes on all topics and specialty areas that are critical to the conduct of the entire spectrum of biomedical research: from the translation of clinical observations at the bedside, to basic and animal research to clinical research and the implementation of innovative medical care.
期刊最新文献
Association between Life's Essential 8 and Cerebral Small Vessel Disease. Treatment practice of vasospasm during endovascular thrombectomy: an international survey. Low-intensity focused ultrasound stimulation promotes stroke recovery via astrocytic HMGB1 and CAMK2N1 in mice. Real-world analysis of two ischaemic stroke and TIA systolic blood pressure goals on 12-month mortality and recurrent vascular events. Safety and efficacy of glibenclamide on cerebral oedema following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1