RESUMEN
Objective: To describe the safety and feasibility of a fast-track pathway for neurosurgical craniotomy patients receiving care in a neurosciences progressive care unit (NPCU). Patients and Methods: Traditionally, most craniotomy patients are admitted to the neurosciences intensive care unit (NSICU) for postoperative follow-up. Decreased availability of NSICU beds during the coronavirus disease-2019 delta surge led our team to establish a de-novo NPCU to preserve capacity for patients requiring high level of care and would bypass routine NSICU admissions. Patients were selected a priori by treating neurosurgeons on the basis of the potential need for high-level ICU services. After operation, selected patients were transferred to the postoperative care unit, where suitability for NPCU transfer was reassessed with checklist-criteria. This process was continued after the delta surge. Results: From July 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022, 57 patients followed the NPCU protocol. Thirty-four (59.6%) were women, and the mean age was 56 years. Fifty-seven craniotomies for 34 intra-axial and 23 extra-axial lesions were performed. After assessment and application of the checklist-criteria, 55 (96.5%) were transferred to NPCU, and only 2 (3.5%) were transferred to ICU. All 55 patients followed in NPCU had good safety outcomes without requiring NSICU transfer. This saved $143,000 and led to 55 additional ICU beds for emergent admissions. Conclusion: This fast-track craniotomy protocol provides early experience that a surgeon-selected group of patients may be suitably monitored outside the traditional NSICU. This system has the potential to reduce overall health care expenses, increase capacity for NSICU bed availability, and change the paradigm of NSICU admission.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is considerable controversy surrounding the optimal use of sedation in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy. Several retrospective studies have favored conscious sedation (CS) over general anesthesia (GA) in terms of functional outcomes and mortality. Recent data from randomized controlled trials has challenged this view. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to critically assess current evidence regarding the use of CS versus GA in mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: The objective was addressed through the development of a critically appraised topic that included a clinical scenario, structured question, literature search strategy, critical appraisal, assessment of results, evidence summary, commentary, and bottom-line conclusions. Participants included consultant and resident neurologists, a medical librarian, clinical epidemiologists, and content experts in the field of vascular neurology, vascular neurosurgery, and interventional neuroradiology. RESULTS: A randomized controlled trial was selected for critical appraisal. This trial compared 128 patients with acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion from a single center (Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark), 65 of whom received GA and 63 received CS. No significant difference was detected for the primary outcome of volume of infarct growth. The rate of successful thrombectomy and favorable clinical outcomes for the GA arm was significantly higher in the intention-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSIONS: GA does not result in worse tissue outcomes or worse clinical outcomes when compared with CS in acute stroke patients with large vessel occlusion undergoing mechanical thrombectomy.