A subspecialty of interventional radiology, which is expanding at a rapid pace, is essential for the detection and non-invasive treatment of numerous neurovascular and cerebrovascular diseases [1]. The utilization of open neurosurgical techniques has been considerably diminished due to procedures like cerebral angiography, aneurysm coiling, arteriovenous malformation (AVM) embolization, among others, as well as stroke therapies. The complexity, length, and crucial nature of brain function of these treatments make them unique in the anesthetic challenges they provide [2, 3].

Consciously balancing the needs of the patient for immobility, adequate cerebral perfusion, and hemodynamic stability is essential in the administration of anesthesia during interventional neuroradiology procedures [4]. Neurological consequences and cerebral blood flow are sensitive to even small changes in oxygenation, carbon dioxide, or blood pressure. Radiation safety concerns, patient access restrictions, and the far-flung locations of neuroradiology suites all add extra layers of difficulty to anesthesia management [5, 6].

The two most prevalent methods of sedation used during neurointerventional treatments are conscious sedation and general anesthesia (GA). Patient immobility, airway control, and ideal procedural circumstances are all provided by general anesthesia, which is particularly useful for lengthy and complicated procedures [7]. The hazards that come with it, though, include hemodynamic instability, a slowed recovery, and trouble with urgent neurological evaluation. However, conscious sedation permits real-time neurological monitoring at the cost of potential side effects such as patient movement, insufficient analgesia, and airway impairment [8].

When dealing with individuals who have neurological impairments or altered consciousness, airway management becomes even more important. It is essential to closely monitor and promptly address any issues that may arise due to the use of contrast agents, anticoagulation, and lengthy procedure periods [9, 10].

There is a lack of information regarding the range of anesthetic difficulties and patient safety results in interventional neuroradiology, especially in practical clinical contexts, despite improvements in anesthetic methods and monitoring. In order to optimize perioperative treatment and improve clinical results, the current study aimed to retrospectively investigate anesthetic problems encountered during neurointerventional operations and evaluate associated patient safety outcomes [11, 12].

This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care center to evaluate anesthetic challenges and patient safety outcomes in interventional neuroradiology procedures. This study was conducted at department of Anesthesiology, Deccan College of Medical Sciences (DCMS), Santosh Nagar Main Rd, Kanchanbagh,, Telangana, Between September 2021 to August 2022. A total of 50 patients who underwent various neurointerventional procedures over a defined study period were included. Patient records were reviewed for demographic details, clinical characteristics, anesthetic techniques, intraoperative events, and postoperative outcomes. Procedure: All patients had a conventional pre-anesthetic evaluation, comprising clinical assessment and pertinent laboratory testing. Depending on the procedure's nature and complexity, patients were administered either general anesthesia or conscious sedation. Patients undergoing general anesthesia had typical induction regimens utilizing intravenous anesthetic drugs, with airway management accomplished by endotracheal intubation or supraglottic airway devices. Anesthesia maintenance was conducted using inhalational or intravenous medications, accompanied by constant monitoring of vital signs. All procedures were conducted in a neuroradiology suite outfitted with standard monitoring equipment, including ECG, non-invasive blood pressure measurement, pulse oximetry, and capnography. Intraoperative data, including hemodynamic variations, airway complications, procedural length, and adverse effects, were documented. Recovery and problems following the operation were also recorded. Inclusion Criteria: ● Patients aged 18–75 years undergoing interventional neuroradiology procedures ● Patients with complete medical and anesthetic records ● Patients who underwent procedures under general anesthesia or conscious sedation ● Patients with ASA physical status I–III Exclusion Criteria: ● Patients with incomplete or missing clinical data ● Patients undergoing emergency procedures with inadequate documentation ● Patients with ASA physical status IV or higher ● Patients with known severe systemic illness affecting study outcomes Statistical Analysis: Data were collected and analyzed using appropriate statistical software. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation, while categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Comparative analysis between groups (general anesthesia vs conscious sedation) was performed using independent t-test and chi-square test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 50 patients who underwent interventional neuroradiology procedures were included in the study. The outcomes were analyzed in terms of demographic characteristics, anesthetic techniques, intraoperative events, and patient safety outcomes.

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Patients

According to Table 1, the average age of the participants was 48.6 years, and there was a small male majority (58%). This demographic breakdown is reflective of the kind of people that typically receive neurointerventional operations.

Table 2: Distribution of Anesthetic Techniques

According to Table 2, 70% of procedures, especially those involving sophisticated anesthesia, were performed under general anesthesia, while 30% of cases involved conscious sedation.

Table 3: Intraoperative Hemodynamic Events

Table 3 demonstrates that 30% of patients experienced hemodynamic instability, with hypotension being the most prevalent occurrence. Hemodynamic stability was maintained in 70% of patients during the treatment.

Table 4: Airway Challenges and Procedural Complications

Table 4 shows that problems and difficulties involving the airway occurred rarely. There was an overall safe anesthetic profile, since the majority of patients (78%) did not have any problems.

Table 5: Recovery Profile (GA vs Sedation)

Patients handled with conscious sedation had shorter recovery durations and fewer intensive care unit (ICU) visits than those given general anesthesia, as seen in Table 5. This exemplifies the possible benefits of sedation in certain instances.

This study examined the difficulties of administering anesthesia and the results for patient safety during interventional neuroradiology operations, drawing attention to the fact that anesthesia management is particularly intricate in this niche field. The results show that there are benefits and drawbacks to both conscious sedation and general anesthesia, even if the latter is still the most common method [13]. Seventy percent of patients in this study underwent procedures requiring general anesthesia, especially those that were lengthy or complicated. Previous research has shown that GA is the preferred method because it offers full immobility, control of the airway, and ideal conditions for the procedure. On the other hand, the current investigation confirmed that it is linked to more hemodynamic fluctuations and slower recovery [14, 15]. The study found that 30% of patients experienced hemodynamic instability, with hypotension being the most common occurrence. Previous research has connected anesthetic drugs, contrast usage, and procedural manipulation to variations in blood pressure during neurointerventional operations. It is essential to closely monitor hemodynamics to ensure they remain stable and to avoid any negative effects on the nervous system [16-18]. Although airway-related complications were uncommon overall, they were more common in individuals undergoing general anesthesia. Prior research has shown that owing to placement and access limitations, airway management in out-of-the-way places like neuroradiology suites is quite difficult. The results highlight the significance of thorough airway evaluation and readiness for challenging airway situations [19]. In this study, the time it took the GA group to recover after surgery was much longer than the sedative group. Previous research has linked conscious sedation to a quicker recovery time by suggesting that it preserves spontaneous respiration and reduces the need for systemic anesthetics. When it comes to easing the process of early neurological evaluation, this benefit is invaluable [20, 21]. The majority of patients in this trial did not have any adverse events, and the complication rate was relatively low. Patient comorbidities and procedural complexity have been found to influence the complication rates in interventional neuroradiology, according to previous research. Successful anesthetic control and strict adherence to safety measures are the reasons for the low complication rate seen in this study [22]. Considerations such as patient history, treatment type, and expected length should guide the decision between general anesthetic and conscious sedation. In some instances, conscious sedation may be a better option than general anesthesia (GA) for difficult procedures, especially when it comes to recovery time and resource consumption [23, 24]. Notable drawbacks of this study include its small sample size, retrospective design, and absence of long-term follow-up. Further evaluation of anesthetic techniques and optimization of patient safety results requires future prospective research with bigger populations. The study's results highlight the need for individualized anesthetic protocols, vigilant monitoring, and interdisciplinary teamwork to overcome obstacles and guarantee patient safety during interventional neuroradiology operations [25, 26].

Significant anesthetic issues, such as preserving hemodynamic stability, guaranteeing airway safety, and managing the limits of a distant procedural environment, are highlighted in the present study as being associated with interventional neuroradiology operations. For extensive or complicated procedures, general anesthesia is still the way to go because it keeps the patient completely still and allows for the best possible operating conditions. On the other hand, it's linked to increased resource consumption and slower recovery times. When administered to the right individuals, conscious sedation can be a good alternative to general anesthesia for less complicated operations since it speeds recovery, decreases problems, and improves postoperative evaluation. When it comes to interventional neuroradiology, the key to maximizing patient safety and the success of procedures is meticulous monitoring, personalized anesthetic preparation, and a team effort including multiple disciplines.

Funding

None

Conflict of Interest:

None

1. Hirsch JA, Leslie-Mazwi TM, Nicola GN, Barr RM, Bello JA, Donovan WD, et al. Current status of interventional neuroradiology. J Neurointerv Surg. 2013;5(3):191-5.
2. Gupta R, Moore JM, Pandey AS. Anesthetic management in neurointerventional procedures. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014;25(3):537-45.
3. Abou-Chebl A, Yeatts SD, Yan B, Cockroft KM, Goyal M, Jovin TG, et al. Impact of general anesthesia on outcomes in acute stroke intervention. Stroke. 2010;41(6):1175-9.
4. Bekelis K, Missios S, MacKenzie TA, Tjoumakaris S, Jabbour P. Anesthesia technique and outcomes in endovascular treatment of stroke. Stroke. 2014;45(12):3616-22.
5. Davis MJ, Menon BK, Baghirzada LB, Campos-Herrera CR, Hill MD, Goyal M. Anesthesia and acute ischemic stroke intervention. Stroke. 2012;43(11):3036-40.
6. Li J, Wang D, Wang S, Zhao Z, Liu L. Anesthetic management of interventional neuroradiology procedures. J Anesth. 2016;30(6):1022-9.
7. Smith M. Anesthesia for neuroradiology. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010;23(5):523-8.
8. Vlisides P, Mashour GA. Perioperative considerations in neurointerventional procedures. Anesthesiology. 2016;124(3):704-13.
9. Tummala RP, Chu RM, Madison MT, Kakarla UK. Complications of endovascular procedures. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;26(5):E10.
10. Pino RM. The nature of anesthesia and procedural sedation outside the operating room. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2007;20(4):347-51.
11. Souter MJ, Rozet I, Lam AM. Anesthesia for neuroradiology and interventional radiology. Anesthesiol Clin. 2009;27(2):369-84.
12. Heiferman DM, Li DD, Pecoraro NC, Smotherman C, Sweeney JM. Anesthetic considerations for neurointerventional procedures. J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9(9):845-50.
13. Jagannathan J, Vates GE, Dumont AS, Mocco J, Hanel RA, Hopkins LN. Complications of neurointerventional procedures. Neurosurgery. 2009;64(5 Suppl 2):ONS38-45.
14. Byrne JV, Sohn MJ, Molyneux AJ, Chir B. Five-year experience in endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery. 1999;45(6):1302-9.
15. Qureshi AI, Vazquez G, Tariq N, Suri MF, Lakshminarayan K. Impact of sedation and anesthesia on outcomes in stroke intervention. Neurosurgery. 2012;70(6):1535-42.
16. Singh PM, Borle A, Trikha A, Sinha A. Anesthesia for interventional neuroradiology procedures. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013;29(2):171-7.
17. Gupta PK, Gupta H, Sundaram A. Challenges in anesthesia for interventional neuroradiology. Saudi J Anaesth. 2014;8(4):453-9.
18. Stoneham MD, Thompson JP. Arterial pressure management and neuroprotection. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103(1):3-7.
19. Mirski MA, Lele AV, Fitzsimmons L, Toung TJK. Diagnosis and treatment of perioperative stroke. Anesthesiology. 2010;112(2):419-35.
20. Patel S, Bhatia K, Mistri P. Airway management challenges in neuroradiology suite. Indian J Anaesth. 2015;59(9):589-94.
21. Nunes RR, Pimentel MLC, Oliveira GS. Sedation versus general anesthesia in neurointervention. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2011;61(5):639-45.
22. Leslie K, Sessler DI. Anesthesia and long-term outcomes. Anesth Analg. 2011;112(4):772-9.
23. Al-Mufti F, Amuluru K, El-Ghanem M. Neurointerventional procedures and anesthesia considerations. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2017;28(4):489-97.
24. Venkatraghavan L, Bharadwaj S, Samra SK. Anesthetic management of neurointerventional procedures. J Neuroanaesth Crit Care. 2016;3(1):6-13.
25. Mashour GA, Woodrum DT, Avidan MS. Neurological complications of anesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114(2):194-203.
26. Smith M, Hirsch NP. General anesthesia versus sedation in neurointerventional procedures. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(3):e407-10.