Prospective Randomized Observer Blinded Single Center Study Comparing 90-day Functional Outcome in Patients Who Received Intravenous Propofol Infusion Versus Inhalational Sevoflurane for General Anesthesia During Mechanical Thrombectomy in Patients Who Suffered From Acute Ischemic Stroke

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, stroke is a leading cause of disability and in 2021 the number five cause of death in the United States1. Endovascular thrombectomy for patients experiencing acute ischemic stroke from the occlusion of a larger cerebral vessel has become a mainstay of treatment.2 Patients undergoing thrombectomy have significantly reduced disability when compared to patients who do not receive this therapy. Several studies have compared outcomes of patients receiving local anesthesia only or sedation versus general anesthesia during endovascular thrombectomy treatment.3,4 While questions remain, current consensus is that when these procedures are done on patients under general anesthesia, there are higher rates of recanalization (opening of the occluded blood vessel) and improved functional recovery. Currently, less is known about the impact of the general anesthesia technique (inhalation vs. intravenous) on disability and functional outcomes in stroke patients.

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare functional outcomes and disability in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke under general anesthesia using a volatile inhalational versus total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) technique. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that patients receiving total intravenous anesthesia will have better functional outcomes and less disability compared to those receiving volatile inhalational anesthesia as measured by the 90 day modified Rankin score and compared in both groups.

Background and Significance