General Anesthesia Versus Non-GA in Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis of RCTs.
meta_analysis · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42462185.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1212/WNL.0000000000218282.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) improves outcome in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion, yet the optimal anesthetic strategy remains controversial. Previous meta-analyses using frequentist methods reported no significant differences between general anesthesia (GA) and non-GA techniques; however, a recently published trial reported a high posterior probability of functional benefit with GA. We aimed to update the existing systematic review and to re-examine the cumulative randomized evidence using Bayesian statistical methods. We conducted a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to January 3, 2026, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GA with non-GA strategies during EVT in adults with AIS. Primary outcomes were functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-2) at 90 days, successful reperfusion (thrombolysis in cerebral ischemia 2b-3), and 90-day mortality. Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses with weakly informative priors were performed. Results are reported as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). A posterior probability of superiority exceeding 80% was considered substantial evidence of benefit. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Ten RCTs (n = 1,601; mean age 70.0 years; 46.6% female) were included. For functional independence, GA was associated with a 94.2% posterior probability of superiority (OR 1.24, 95% CrI 0.94-1.66). GA was associated with higher successful reperfusion rates (OR 1.73, 95% CrI 1.23-2.43; P (superiority) > 99%). No substantial differences were observed for 90-day mortality (OR 0.92, 95% CrI 0.67-1.27; P [superiority] 69%), excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1; OR 1.06, 95% CrI 0.80-1.41; P [superiority] 67%), or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR 0.93, 95% CrI 0.56-1.52; P [superiority] 62%). GA was associated with increased intraoperative hypotension (OR 4.28, 95% CrI 2.35-7.86; P [superiority] 0.01%) and increased pneumonia risk (OR 1.60, 95% CrI 0.95-2.81; P [superiority] 3%). This meta-analysis using a Bayesian approach provides evidence that GA during EVT for AIS is associated with improved functional outcomes, challenging previous conclusions of equivalence. These findings should be interpreted considering open-label designs and heterogeneous non-GA comparators. They suggest that GA may be preferred but confirmatory evidence is needed.