General Anesthesia versus Sedation, Both with Hemodynamic Control, during Intraarterial Treatment for Stroke: The GASS Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is speculated that the anesthetic strategy during endovascular therapy for stroke may have an impact on the outcome of the patients. The authors hypothesized that conscious sedation is associated with a better functional outcome 3 months after endovascular therapy for the treatment of stroke compared with general anesthesia. METHODS: In this single-blind, randomized trial, patients received either a standardized general anesthesia or a standardized conscious sedation. Blood pressure control was also standardized in both groups. The primary outcome measure was a modified Rankin score less than or equal to 2 (0 = no symptoms; 5 = severe disability) assessed 3 months after treatment. The main secondary outcomes were complications, mortality, reperfusion results, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scores at days 1 and 7. RESULTS: Of 351 randomized patients, 345 were included in the analysis. The primary outcome occurred in 129 of 341 (38%) of the patients: 63 (36%) in the conscious sedation group and 66 (40%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.19]; P = 0.474). Patients in the general anesthesia group experienced more intraoperative hypo- or hypertensive episodes, while the cumulative duration was not different (mean ± SD, 36 ± 31 vs. 39 ± 25 min; P = 0.079). The time from onset and from arrival to puncture were longer in the general anesthesia group (mean difference, 19 min [i.e., -00:19] [95% CI, -0:38 to 0] and mean difference, 9 min [95% CI, -0:18 to -0:01], respectively), while the time from onset to recanalization was similar in both groups. Recanalization was more often successful in the general anesthesia group (144 of 169 [85%] vs. 131 of 174 [75%]; P = 0.021). The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The functional outcomes 3 months after endovascular treatment for stroke were similar with general anesthesia and sedation. Our results, therefore, suggest that clinicians can use either approach.

GASS Trial study protocol: a multicentre, single-blind, randomised clinical trial comparing general anaesthesia and sedation during intra-arterial treatment for stroke.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of acute stroke has drastically changed in the last 10 years. Endovascular therapy is now the standard of care for patients with a stroke caused by a large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation. The impact of the type of anaesthesia (general anaesthesia or conscious sedation) during endovascular therapy on the outcome of the patients is still a matter of debate. Previous studies are mostly retrospective and/or focused on the early postprocedure outcome and/or without blood pressure goals and/or single-centre small size studies. We therefore designed a multicentre study hypothesising that conscious sedation is associated with a better functional outcome 3 months after endovascular therapy for the treatment of stroke compared with general anaesthesia. METHODS/ANALYSIS: The General Anesthesia vs Sedation for Stroke (GASS) Trial is a randomised, parallel, single-blind, multicentre study of 350 patients undergoing endovascular therapy for the treatment of stroke. Patients will be randomly allocated to receive either a general anaesthesia or a conscious sedation. The primary outcome measure is the modified Rankin score assessed 3 months after the treatment. Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: The GASS Trial has been approved by an independent ethics committee for all study centres. Participant recruitment begins in September 2016. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02822144.

Atrial fibrillation in trauma patients requiring intensive care.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of atrial fibrillation (AF) in trauma patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective observational study in a surgical intensive care unit (ICU). PATIENTS: All trauma patients admitted in the surgical ICU except those who had AF at admission. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: AF occurred in 16/293 patients (5.5%). AF patients were older, had a higher number of regions traumatized, and received more fluid therapy, transfusion products, and catecholamines. They more frequently experienced systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, shock, and acute renal failure and had higher scores of severity (Simplified Acute Physiology Score, SAPS II; Injury Severity Score). ICU length of stay and resources use were also increased. ICU and hospital mortality rates were twice higher in AF patients whereas standardized mortality ratio (observed/expected mortality by SAPS II) was similar in the two groups. We found five independent risk factors of developing AF: catecholamine use (OR = 5.7, 95% CI 1.7-19.1), SAPS II of 30 or higher (OR = 11.6, 95% CI 1.3-103.0), three or more regions traumatized (OR = 6.2, 95% CI 1.8-21.4), age 40 years or higher (OR = 6.3, CI 1.4-28.7), and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (OR = 4.4, 95% CI 1.2-16.1). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to age and catecholamine use, inflammation and severity of injury may be involved in the development of AF in trauma patients. Our results suggest that AF could rather be a marker of a higher severity of illness without major effect on mortality.