Observational studyBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Airway management in general anesthesia for endovascular treatment of cerebral arteriovenous malformation: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of combined anesthesia with spontaneous breathing in the surgery of intertrochanteric fracture of femur in elderly patients.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2024Trial
- Effects of Supraglottic Airway Devices on Hemodynamic Response and Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter: Proseal LMA, LMA Supreme, and I-gel LMA.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Trial
- A SIAARTI Neuroanesthesia and Neurointensive Care Section survey on elective neurosurgery and interventional neuroradiology.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Review
- General anesthesia with spontaneous breathing and laryngeal mask airway intubation combined with peripheral nerve block in orthopedic surgery: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThis retrospective and observational study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the use of the endotracheal tube (ETT) and the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) for the airway management with respect to airway safety, hemodynamic stability, adverse respiratory events, and recovery characteristics in patients who underwent endovascular treatment (EVT) for cerebrovascular arteriovenous malformation under general anesthesia between 2011 and 2018.
methodsThe study included data from the patient's electronic medical records and anesthesia files. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of hemodynamic disturbances and respiratory adverse events during airway management. The secondary outcome measure was the comparison of recovery characteristics.
resultsThe airway was secured using ETT in 41 patients and LMA in 39 patients. Airway safety was established in all patients without a complication throughout the procedure. Mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate were increased to > 20% of baseline levels at intubation and extubation periods in more patients in the ETT group than the LMA group (27 vs. 3; p = 0.07, and 11 vs. 2; p = 0.021). Respiratory adverse events including straining and coughing were observed in ten patients in the ETT group but only in one patient in the LMA group (p = 0.013). Time to extubation, to neurological assessment, and to discharge from the angiography unit were similar (p > 0.05).
conclusionIt was concluded that LMA provided sufficient airway safety as with ETT and may be used as an alternative to ETT for EVTs under general anesthesia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.