Radiation Dose Comparison in Endovascular Clot Retrieval: General Anaesthetic versus Conscious Sedation Approaches
Author Block: F. Taylor, K. Sehgal, D. Carrion, M. Masterson, M. K. Badawy, L-A. Slater; Melbourne/AU
Purpose: Endovascular clot retrieval (ECR) is a time-sensitive, adjunct treatment for large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes. We present the results of this single high-volume stroke centre, to establish differences in radiation doses between ECR cases performed under general anaesthetic (GA) and conscious sedation (CS).
Methods or Background: All ECR cases in adult patients between October 2018 and June 2023 were included.
Procedure records, patient characteristics, stroke outcome, and radiation dosimetry measures were collected and analysed retrospectively.
Summative data, i.e. median and interquartile range for overall dosimetry measures were described overall and by subgroup according to anaesthetic strategy. ANOVA was used to compare radiation dose measures, clot location, stroke severity measures and endovascular clot retrieval times between anaesthetic strategy.
Results or Findings: Radiation doses were higher in patients receiving a GA; DAP 9,346 cGy.cm2, (4,996, 17,442) vs. 7,052 cGy.cm2 (4,529, 10,926), reference air kerma 627 mGy (325, 1,287) vs 507 (300, 789), total fluoroscopy time 34 minutes (19, 63) vs 31 (18, 47). This was associated with a greater pre-reperfusion morbidity (NIHSS of 13 (7, 19) vs 11 (6, 17), more complex thrombus location (more tandem, less M2, more ICA, more basilar clots) and delayed presentation to hospital (227 minutes (101, 452) vs. 125 (66, 281), p <0.001).
Conclusion: We have demonstrated higher radiation doses under GA versus CS cases and some of the factors that may contribute to this. These values serve as benchmark ranges for comparable centres performing ECR. Larger multicentre analysis is required to establish more generalisable dose reference levels.
Limitations: Single centre cohort.
Affected by the COVID pandemic; departmental decision to preference GA at several points between March 2020-October 2021.
TICI grading wasn't core lab adjudicated.
Funding for this study: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Has your study been approved by an ethics committee? Yes
Ethics committee - additional information: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Ethics approval was obtained from the local Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), reference no. QA/91812/MonH-2022-343316 and the need for informed consent was waived.