OBJECTIVE: A systematic review to determine the effectiveness of intra-arterial anaesthetics on post- operative pain and opioid analgesia requirements in arterial embolisation procedures.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed (Embase, PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library) from inception to 10th August 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that utilised intra-arterial anaesthesia during an embolisation procedure for the purposes of pain control were included. Eligibility was assessed by two investigators independently.
RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-nine candidate articles were identified, and 9 studies met the inclusion criteria (6 RCTs and 3 retrospective cohort studies). Four studies were of hepatic chemoembolisation and 5 were of uterine artery embolisation. Five hundred twenty-nine patients were treated in total. All studies used lidocaine as the anaesthetic with doses ranging from 20 to 200 mg, and the anaesthetic was delivered varyingly before, during or after embolisation. Pain intensity was converted to a numeric scale from 0 to 10, and opioid doses were converted to milligram morphine equivalent doses. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to analyse the results of RCTs, and the results of cohort studies were summarised with a narrative synthesis. The meta-analyses suggested that pain scores were reduced by a mean of 1.02 (95% CI - 2.34 to 0.30; p = 0.13) and opioid doses were reduced by a mean of 7.35 mg (95% CI, - 14.77, 0.06; p = 0.05) in the intervention group however neither finding was statistically significant. No serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Intra-arterial anaesthetic may slightly reduce pain intensity and post-operative opioid consumption following embolisation, however the results are not statistically significant. There is very limited data available on the effect of anaesthetic on length of hospital admission. Whilst no serious adverse events were reported, there are some concerns regarding the effect of lidocaine on the technical success of embolisation procedures that preclude our recommendation for routine use in embolisation procedures. High quality randomised controlled trials are required to elucidate the dose-response effect of lidocaine on opioid consumption and pain following embolisation, particularly in the first few hours post-operatively, as well as effects on duration of hospital stay.

Purpose: This study aims to analyse the efficacy of different treatment methods for acute basilar artery occlusion, with an emphasis placed on evaluating the latest treatment methods. Method:  A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to analyse the current data on the therapies available for treating acute basilar artery occlusion. Results: A total of 102 articles were included. The weighted pooled rate of mortality was 43.16% (95% CI 38.35-48.03%) in the intravenous thrombolysis group, 45.56% (95% CI 39.88-51.28) in the intra-arterial thrombolysis group, and 31.40% (95% CI 28.31-34.56%) for the endovascular thrombectomy group. The weighted pooled rate of Modified Ranking Score (mRS) 0-2 at 3 months was 31.40 (95% CI 28.31-34.56%) in the IVT group, 28.29% (95% CI 23.16-33.69%) in the IAT group, and 35.22% (95% CI 32.39-38.09%) for the EVT group. Meta-analyses were also done for the secondary outcomes of recanalization and symptomatic haemorrhage. There was no difference between stent retriever and thrombo-aspiration thrombectomy on subgroup analysis in both clinical outcome and safety profile. Limitations: The included studies were observational in nature. There was significant heterogeneity in some of the outcomes. Conclusions:  Superior outcomes and better recanalization rates for acute basilar occlusion were seen with patients managed with endovascular thrombectomy when compared with either intravenous and/or intraarterial thrombolysis. No superiority of stent-retrievers over thrombo-aspiration thrombectomy was seen.