Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41746322›Full record

SynthesisClinical neuroradiology2026

General Versus Non-General Anesthesia in Endovascular Treatment for Posterior Circulation Stroke: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Lucca Tamara Alves Carretta, Rudolfh Batista Arend, Henrique Padilha Gnoatto, Victor Luiz Ferreira Kauer, Bruna Lara Zardin, Filipe Virgilio Ribeiro, Mariana Letícia de Bastos Maximiano, Anderson Silva Corin, Nicole Baptista de Oliveira, Tassiane Cristina Morais and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical neuroradiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Lucca Tamara Alves CarrettaDepartment of Medicine, Escola Superior de Ciências da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Vitória (EMESCAM), Vitória, Brazil. luccatamara12@gmail.com.
Rudolfh Batista ArendDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Fronteira Sul, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Henrique Padilha GnoattoDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Fronteira Sul, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Victor Luiz Ferreira KauerDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Fronteira Sul, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Bruna Lara ZardinDepartment of Medicine, Federal University of Fronteira Sul, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Filipe Virgilio RibeiroDepartment of Medicine, Centro Universitário Barão de Mauá, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Mariana Letícia de Bastos MaximianoDepartment of Medicine, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Brazil.
Anderson Silva CorinDepartment of Medicine, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Nicole Baptista de OliveiraDepartment of Medicine, Escola Superior de Ciências da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Vitória (EMESCAM), Vitória, Brazil.
Tassiane Cristina MoraisPostgraduate Program in Public Policies and Local Development, Escola Superior de Ciências da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Vitória (EMESCAM), Vitória, Brasil.
Fernando Rocha OliveiraPostgraduate Program in Public Policies and Local Development, Escola Superior de Ciências da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Vitória (EMESCAM), Vitória, Brasil.
Leandro de Assis BarbosaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hospital Estadual Central, Vitória, Brazil.
Alex RomanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Federal University of Fronteira Sul, Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Hasan T OzgurDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States.
Ahmet GünkanDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare general anesthesia (GA) versus non-GA effects on clinical and procedural outcomes during endovascular therapy (EVT) for posterior circulation stroke.

methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020, we systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase until June-2025 for comparative studies on GA vs. non-GA in posterior circulation EVT. Data on 90-day mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (any, aICH; symptomatic, sICH), functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0‑2/0-3), and successful recanalization (mTICI 2b-3) were extracted.

resultsFourteen studies, 3899 patients (1950 GA, 1949 non-GA) were included. No significant differences between GA and non-GA were found for 90-day all-cause mortality (OR 1.23; 95% CI: 0.92-1.63), aICH (OR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.45-1.14), sICH (OR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.58-1.06), or functional independence. However, GA significantly increased the odds of successful recanalization (mTICI 2b-3) (OR 1.24; 95% CI: 1.01-1.52; p = 0.0389).

conclusionIn posterior circulation EVT, GA enhances mTICI 2b‑3 but offers no demonstrable clinical advantage or disadvantage over non-GA for mortality, aICH sICH, or functional independence. An individualized anesthetic approach, balancing procedural stability against physiological risks, is advised. Future randomized trials with optimized physiological management are crucial to align technical and clinical gains.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, GeneralEndovascular ProceduresStrokeHumansTreatment OutcomeEndovascular therapyGeneral anesthesiaMeta-analysisPosterior circulationStroke

Identifiers

PMID41746322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.