Campbell, B. C. V. et al. (2018) Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Neurology, 17(1), pp. 47-53. (doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30407-6) This is the author's final accepted version.There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/149670/ variables. An alternative approach using propensity-score stratification was also used. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modeling with a random effect for trial incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.Findings: Of 1764 patients in 7 trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 who did not undergo the procedure and 2 with missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236/797 (30%) of endovascular patients were treated under GA. At baseline, GA patients were younger and had shorter time to randomisation but similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared to non-GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months versus standard care in both GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95%CI 1·09-2·11, p=0·014) and non-GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95%CI 1·75-3·10, p<0·001) patients. However, outcomes were significantly better for those treated under non-GA versus GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95%CI 1·14-2·04, p=0·004; propensitystratified cOR 1·44 95%CI 1·08-1·92, p=0·012). The risk of bias and variability among studies was assessed to be low.Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons. Funding:The HERMES collaboration was funded by an unrestricted grant from Medtronic to the University of Calgary. Research in contextEvidence before this study between abolition of the thrombectomy treatment effect in MR CLEAN and no effect in THRACE. Three single-centre randomised trials of general anaesthesia versus conscious sedation found either no difference in functional outcome between groups or a slight benefit of general anaesthesia. Added value of this studyThese data from contemporary, high quality randomised trials form the largest study to date of the association between general anesthesia and the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care. We used two different approaches to adjust for baseline imbalances (multivariable logistic regression and propensity-score stratification). We found that GA for endovascular thrombectomy, as practiced in contemporary clinical care across a wide range of expert centres during the rand...

Background: Whether bridging treatment combining intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is superior to direct EVT alone for emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation is unknown. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to investigate and assess the effect and safety of bridging treatment vs. direct EVT in patients with LVO in the anterior circulation.Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched to assess the effect and safety of bridging treatment and direct EVT in LVO. Functional independence, mortality, asymptomatic and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aICH and sICH, respectively), and successful recanalization were evaluated. The risk ratio and the 95% CI were analyzed.Results: Among the eight studies included, there was no significant difference in the long-term functional independence (OR = 1.008, 95% CI = 0.845–1.204, P = 0.926), mortality (OR = 1.060, 95% CI = 0.840–1.336, P = 0.624), recanalization rate (OR = 1.015, 95% CI = 0.793–1.300, P = 0.905), and the incidence of sICH (OR = 1.320, 95% CI = 0.931–1.870, P = 0.119) between bridging therapy and direct EVT. After adjusting for confounding factors, bridging therapy showed a lower recanalization rate (effect size or ES = −0.377, 95% CI = −0.684 to −0.070, P = 0.016), but there was no significant difference in the long-term functional independence (ES = 0.057, 95% CI = −0.177 to 0.291, P = 0.634), mortality (ES = 0.693, 95% CI = −0.133 to 1.519, P = 0.100), and incidence of sICH (ES = −0.051, 95% CI = −0.687 to 0.585, P = 0.875) compared with direct EVT. Meanwhile, in the subgroup analysis of RCT, no significant difference was found in the long-term functional independence (OR = 0.927, 95% CI = 0.727–1.182, P = 0.539), recanalization rate (OR = 1.331, 95% CI = 0.948–1.867, P = 0.099), mortality (OR = 1.072, 95% CI = 0.776–1.481, P = 0.673), and sICH incidence (OR = 1.383, 95% CI = 0.806–2.374, P = 0.977) between patients receiving bridging therapy and those receiving direct DVT.Conclusion: For stroke patients with acute anterior circulation occlusion and who are eligible for intravenous thrombolysis, there is no significant difference in the clinical effect between direct EVT and bridging therapy, which needs to be verified by more randomized controlled trials.