Safety of local anesthesia in endovascular treatment of Aneurysms: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms (EVTIAs) is increasingly popular due to its minimally invasive nature and high success rate. While general anesthesia (GA) has been the historical preference for EVTIAs, there's growing interest in local anesthesia (LA). However, concerns persist about LA safety for EVTIAs. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess LA safety for EVTIAs. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Pooled analysis with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) assessed effects, I2 statistics gauged heterogeneity, and a random-effects model was adopted. Conversion to GA, neurological or procedure-related complications, intraoperative intracranial hemorrhagic complications (IIHC), and mortality were assessed. Subanalyses for ruptured and unruptured cases were performed. RESULTS: The analysis included eleven studies, 2,133 patients, and 2,369 EVTIAs under LA. Conversion to GA rate was 1 % (95 %CI: 0 to 2 %). Neurological or procedure-related complications rate was 13 % (95 % CI: 8 % to 17 %). IIHC analysis revealed a rate of 1 % (95 % CI: 1 % to 2 %). The mortality rate was 0 % (95 %CI: 0 % to 0 %). Subanalyses revealed similar rates in ruptured and unruptured subgroups, except for a slightly high rate of complications and IIHC in the ruptured subgroup. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that EVTIA under LA is safe, with low conversion and mortality rates, even for ruptured aneurysms. Complications rates, also in IIHC rates, are comparable to those reported for GA, emphasizing LA's comparable safety profile in EVTIAs. Considering these promising outcomes, the decision to opt for the LA approach emerges as meaningful and well-suited for the endovascular treatment of aneurysms. Beyond its safety, LA introduces inherent supplementary advantages, including shortened hospitalization periods, cost-effectiveness, and an expedited patient recovery process.

Transradial versus transfemoral approach in cerebral angiography: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral angiography has two common access sites: Transradial approach and transfemoral approach. However, there's no definitive answer to which one is superior. OBJECTIVE: Compare transradial approach and transfemoral approach for a cerebral angiography procedure. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature of studies reporting both transradial approach and transfemoral approach results was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were queried. RESULTS: The meta-analysis examined 18 studies comprising 9388 patients undergoing cerebral angiography. Among the patients, 4598 underwent transradial approach (48.9%) and 4790 underwent transfemoral approach (51.1%). Our results revealed no statistical differences between the approaches regarding procedure success, crossover to transfemoral approach, procedure and fluoroscopy time between both approaches in cerebral angiography. Total, major, and minor complications comparisons were more favorable to transradial approach for this procedure. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest, despite the ultimate decision regarding the choice of access method might be influenced by the physician's experience and personal preference, the data distinctly lean toward transradial approach as the preferable option for cerebral angiography. The advantages of transradial approach, highlighted by its lower complication rates, especially major complications, suggest that its adoption could contribute to enhanced patient safety and procedural outcomes.