Cochrane · systematic review · CD013690
Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment
Tosello, R, Riera, R, Tosello, G, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
StrokeAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
15
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
5
Included studies
NR
No studies 5 · 33.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 13.3%Low 7 · 46.7%Moderate 1 · 6.7%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
General anaesthesia compared to non‐general anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (early)
Population: acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Functional outcome (continuous; mRS) General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 90 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Neurological impairment (NIHSS) General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 982 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stroke‐related mortality General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | RR 0.98 [0.52, 1.84] | 3 studies · 330 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All intracranial haemorrhage General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | RR 0.92 [0.65, 1.29] | 5 studies · 693 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Target artery revascularisation (dichotomous; mTICI 2b–3) General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | RR 1.1 [1.02, 1.18] | 7 studies · 982 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Time to revascularisation from groin puncture until arterial reperfusion (minutes) General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 498 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Adverse events (haemodynamic instability) General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | RR 0.21 [0.05, 0.79] | 2 studies · 229 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
General anaesthesia compared to non‐general anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)
Population: acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Functional outcome (dichotomous; mRS ≤ 2) General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | RR 1.21 [0.93, 1.58] | 4 studies · 625 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional outcome (continuous; mRS ≤ 2) General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 978 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Neurological impairment (NIHSS) General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Stroke‐related mortality General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | RR 0.88 [0.64, 1.22] | 6 studies · 843 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All intracranial haemorrhage General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Target artery revascularisation status General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to revascularisation General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |