General anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background: The effect of carotid endarterectomy in lowering the risk of stroke ipsilateral to severe atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis is offset by complications during or soon after surgery. We compared surgery under general anaesthesia with that under local anaesthesia because prediction and avoidance of perioperative strokes might be easier under local anaesthesia than under general anaesthesia. Methods: We undertook a parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of 3526 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis from 95 centres in 24 countries. Participants were randomly assigned to surgery under general (n=1753) or local (n=1773) anaesthesia between June, 1999 and October, 2007. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with stroke (including retinal infarction), myocardial infarction, or death between randomisation and 30 days after surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Control Trials number ISRCTN00525237. Findings: A primary outcome occurred in 84 (4·8%) patients assigned to surgery under general anaesthesia and 80 (4·5%) of those assigned to surgery under local anaesthesia; three events per 1000 treated were prevented with local anaesthesia (95% CI -11 to 17; risk ratio [RR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·70 to 1·27]). The two groups did not significantly differ for quality of life, length of hospital stay, or the primary outcome in the prespecified subgroups of age, contralateral carotid occlusion, and baseline surgical risk. Interpretation: We have not shown a definite difference in outcomes between general and local anaesthesia for carotid surgery. The anaesthetist and surgeon, in consultation with the patient, should decide which anaesthetic technique to use on an individual basis. Funding: The Health Foundation (UK) and European Society of Vascular Surgery. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

General anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The effect of carotid endarterectomy in lowering the risk of stroke ipsilateral to severe atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis is offset by complications during or soon after surgery. We compared surgery under general anaesthesia with that under local anaesthesia because prediction and avoidance of perioperative strokes might be easier under local anaesthesia than under general anaesthesia. METHODS: We undertook a parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of 3526 patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis from 95 centres in 24 countries. Participants were randomly assigned to surgery under general (n=1753) or local (n=1773) anaesthesia between June, 1999 and October, 2007. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with stroke (including retinal infarction), myocardial infarction, or death between randomisation and 30 days after surgery. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with Current Control Trials number ISRCTN00525237. FINDINGS: A primary outcome occurred in 84 (4.8%) patients assigned to surgery under general anaesthesia and 80 (4.5%) of those assigned to surgery under local anaesthesia; three events per 1000 treated were prevented with local anaesthesia (95% CI -11 to 17; risk ratio [RR] 0.94 [95% CI 0.70 to 1.27]). The two groups did not significantly differ for quality of life, length of hospital stay, or the primary outcome in the prespecified subgroups of age, contralateral carotid occlusion, and baseline surgical risk. INTERPRETATION: We have not shown a definite difference in outcomes between general and local anaesthesia for carotid surgery. The anaesthetist and surgeon, in consultation with the patient, should decide which anaesthetic technique to use on an individual basis. FUNDING: The Health Foundation (UK) and European Society of Vascular Surgery

Rivaroxaban or aspirin for patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial

Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a contributor to embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Subgroup analyses from previous studies suggest that anticoagulation could reduce recurrent stroke compared with antiplatelet therapy. We hypothesised that anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, would reduce the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke compared with aspirin among patients with PFO enrolled in the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. Methods: NAVIGATE ESUS was a double-blinded, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 459 centres in 31 countries that assessed the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with ESUS. For this prespecified subgroup analysis, cohorts with and without PFO were defined on the basis of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE). The primary efficacy outcome was time to recurrent ischaemic stroke between treatment groups. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Additionally, we did a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of studies in which patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO were randomly assigned to receive anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Findings: Between Dec 23, 2014, and Sept 20, 2017, 7213 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=3609) or aspirin (n=3604). Patients were followed up for a mean of 11 months because of early trial termination. PFO was reported as present in 534 (7·4%) patients on the basis of either TTE or TOE. Patients with PFO assigned to receive aspirin had a recurrent ischaemic stroke rate of 4·8 events per 100 person-years compared with 2·6 events per 100 person-years in those treated with rivaroxaban. Among patients with known PFO, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference in risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke between rivaroxaban and aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·22–1·36), and the risk was similar for those without known PFO (1·06; 0·84–1·33; pinteraction=0·18). The risks of major bleeding with rivaroxaban versus aspirin were similar in patients with PFO detected (HR 2·05; 95% CI 0·51–8·18) and in those without PFO detected (HR 2·82; 95% CI 1·69–4·70; pinteraction=0·68). The random-effects meta-analysis combined data from NAVIGATE ESUS with data from two previous trials (PICSS and CLOSE) and yielded a summary odds ratio of 0·48 (95% CI 0·24–0·96; p=0·04) for ischaemic stroke in favour of anticoagulation, without evidence of heterogeneity. Interpretation: Among patients with ESUS who have PFO, anticoagulation might reduce the risk of recurrent stroke by about half, although substantial imprecision remains. Dedicated trials of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy or PFO closure, or both, are warranted. Funding: Bayer and Janssen