12 versus 24 h bed rest after acute ischemic stroke thrombolysis: a preliminary experience

BACKGROUND: The practice of \u3e /=24 h of bed rest after acute ischemic stroke thrombolysis is common among hospitals, but its value compared to shorter periods of bed rest is unknown. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with a diagnosis of ischemic stroke who had received intravenous thrombolysis treatment from 1/1/2010 until 4/13/2016, identified from the local ischemic stroke registry, were included. Standard practice bed rest for \u3e /=24 h, the protocol prior to 1/27/2014, was retrospectively compared with standard practice bed rest for \u3e /=12 h, the protocol after that date. The primary outcome was favorable discharge location (defined as home, home with services, or acute rehabilitation). Secondary outcome measures included incidence of pneumonia, NIHSS at discharge, and length of stay. RESULTS: 392 patients were identified (203 in the \u3e /=24 h group, 189 in the \u3e /=12 h group). There was no significant difference in favorable discharge outcome in the \u3e /=24 h bed rest protocol compared with the \u3e /=12 h bed rest protocol in multivariable logistic regression analysis (76.2% vs. 70.9%, adjusted OR 1.20 CI 0.71-2.03). Compared with the \u3e /=24 h bed rest group, pneumonia rates (8.3% versus 1.6%, adjusted OR 0.12 CI 0.03-0.55), median discharge NIHSS (3 versus 2, adjusted p = .034), and mean length of stay (5.4 versus 3.5 days, adjusted p = .006) were lower in the \u3e /=12 h bed rest group. CONCLUSION: Compared with \u3e /=24 h bed rest, \u3e /=12 h bed rest after acute ischemic stroke reperfusion therapy appeared to be similar. A non-inferiority randomized trial is needed to verify these findings

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

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between 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