Response to Letter by Hemmer et al
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
We appreciate the commentary on our recent publication by Hemmer et al1 but would like to help clarify some of the concerns raised. It is important to understand that we performed an exploratory analysis in a retrospective manner and have acknowledged the limitations as such in the articles and thus have not “condemned” general anesthesia (GA) as the editorial would suggest. The major finding of this study is that patients who undergo acute interventions with conscious sedation do not appear to be at higher risk for intracranial hemorrhagic complications, particularly wire perforation attributable to patient movement, compared to GA. This is reassuring to operators who perform these procedures with minimal sedation.
The second concern raised was that we did not report the univariate and multivariate models comparing GA to conscious sedation and instead reported comparisons of outcomes. We have stated in the statistics section that this analysis was performed comparing GA to conscious sedation directly but, because of space …