Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Response to Ganau et al letter ‘The continuous quest for a more tailored approach to anesthetic management of patients undergoing endovascular therapy for acute stroke’
  1. Raoul Pop1,2,
  2. Salvatore Chibbaro3,
  3. Remy Beaujeux1,2,
  4. Benjamin Gory4
  1. 1 Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospitals Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
  2. 2 Interventional Radiology, Institut de Chirurgie Guidée par l'Image, Strasbourg, France
  3. 3 Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Alsace, France
  4. 4 Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Centre Nancy, Nancy, Lorraine, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Raoul Pop, Department of Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospitals Strasbourg, 67200 Strasbourg, France; pop.raoul{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We thank the authors1 for their interest in our article2 regarding anesthetic management during mechanical thrombectomy (MT). They make valid points regarding patient age, conversion rates to general anesthesia (GA) and periprocedural blood pressure.

We consider it appropriate to comment here on their final statement regarding the level of evidence for local anesthesia (LA), namely “previous studies with much larger sample sizes have provided class III evidence that for patients undergoing MT for acute ischemic stroke LA improves functional outcome compared with GA”. To date, very few studies have assessed …

View Full Text


  • Twitter @RaoulPop25

  • Contributors RP, SC: drafted the manuscript. RB, BG: critically reviewed the manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles