Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Active, not recruiting
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT06183567 |
Other study ID # |
UERH-AR-ZT-04 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Active, not recruiting |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
November 30, 2023 |
Est. completion date |
May 30, 2024 |
Study information
Verified date |
May 2024 |
Source |
Umraniye Education and Research Hospital |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
The hypothesis of this study is that sedoanalgesia will provide better early neurological
recovery than general anaesthesia in acute ischaemic stroke patients undergoing endovascular
thrombectomy and to investigate the haemodynamic data of both anaesthetic methods.
Description:
Endovascular mechanical thrombectomy (EMT) is the standard emergency treatment for patients
presenting with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation due to urgent large vessel
occlusion and suitable for interventional procedures. However, despite reperfusion of the
ischemia-affected area, some patients do not recover clinically. The reason for this is not
known exactly. It is known that age and baseline function, which are thought to indicate
brain reserve, affect the long-term outcome of stroke. Chronic hypertension, diabetes
mellitus, dyslipidemia and coronary artery disease, which are associated with low brain
reserve, are quite common in acute ischemic stroke patients.
There is controversy as to whether general anesthesia (GA) or sedoanalgesia (SA) should be
used during EMT for acute ischemic stroke. There are not enough randomized trials addressing
this question. Benefits of GA include airway preservation, pain control and potentially
improved radiographic imaging and patient immobility for intervention. Conversely, GA is
time-consuming and possibly associated with longer time for groin puncture and
revascularization. In addition, hypotension may occur during GA, which carries a greater risk
of ischemic damage. Advantages of SA may include shorter time to revascularization, fewer
hemodynamic problems and the possibility of better neurological assessment during the
procedure. The main arguments against SA are that patient movement can lead to procedural
complications, higher radiation dose, the need for more contrast media and lack of airway
control. Simonsen et al. compared general anesthesia and conscious sedation in patients with
acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular treatment (GOLIATH) and showed that the choice
of different anesthesia method can affect infarct area growth, clinical outcomes, and
important physiological and anesthetic parameters.
Again, in the SIESTA (Sedation vs Intubation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment) study
comparing sedation and intubation in endovascular stroke treatment, no significant difference
was shown between both groups when early neurological recovery was compared (24th hour
NIHSS). In this study, no superiority of conscious sedation over general anesthesia was
demonstrated.
In the ESCAPE and SWIFT study, general anesthesia and conscious sedation were compared and
conscious sedation was associated with better outcome than general anesthesia.