Sugg R M, Noser E A, Shaltoni H M, Gonzales N R, Campbell M S, Weir R, Cacayorin E D, Grotta J C
Department of Neurology, University of Texas-Houston Medical School, Houston, TX, USA.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Apr;27(4):769-73.
Reteplase (RP) and urokinase (UK) are being used "off-label" to treat acute ischemic stroke. The safety and efficacy of intra-arterial RP or UK in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, however, has yet to be proved. We aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RP compared with UK in acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion.
Retrospective analysis was conducted of cases from a prospectively collected stroke data base on consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion by digital subtraction angiography treated with intra-arterial RP or UK. Thrombolytic dosage, recanalization rate, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), mortality, and outcome were determined.
Thirty-three patients received RP and 22 received UK (mean doses, 2.5 +/- 1.4 mg and 690,000 +/- 562,000 U, respectively). Vascular occlusions included 9 basilar arteries (BAs), 7 internal carotid arteries (ICAs), and 17 middle cerebral arteries (MCAs) with RP and 9 BAs, 4 ICAs, and 9 MCAs with UK. Median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scales were as follows: 16 (range, 5-25; 81% > or = 10) with RP and 17 (range, 6-38; 85% > or =10) with UK. Mean time from symptom onset to thrombolytic initiation: 333 +/- 230 minutes with RP and 343 +/- 169 minutes with UK. Recanalization rates were as follows: 82% with RP and 64% with UK (P = .13). Symptomatic ICH rates were as follows: 12% with RP and 4.5% with UK (P = .50). The mortality rate was 24% with RP and 27% with UK (P = .8).
Although limited in statistical power, our study suggests that, although IA thrombolysis with RP shows a trend for higher recanalization rates and hemorrhage rates, IA thrombolysis with RP is not significantly different in recanalization, outcome, mortality, and ICH compared with that of UK or rates reported with IA pro-UK.
瑞替普酶(RP)和尿激酶(UK)正被“超说明书”用于治疗急性缺血性卒中。然而,动脉内使用RP或UK治疗急性缺血性卒中的安全性和有效性尚未得到证实。我们旨在评估在伴有大血管闭塞的急性缺血性卒中患者中,RP与UK相比的安全性和有效性。
对前瞻性收集的卒中数据库中的病例进行回顾性分析,这些病例为连续的经数字减影血管造影显示大血管闭塞并接受动脉内RP或UK治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者。确定溶栓剂量、再通率、脑出血(ICH)、死亡率和预后情况。
33例患者接受了RP治疗,22例接受了UK治疗(平均剂量分别为2.5±1.4mg和690,000±562,000U)。血管闭塞情况包括:接受RP治疗的有9条基底动脉(BA)、7条颈内动脉(ICA)和17条大脑中动脉(MCA),接受UK治疗的有9条BA、4条ICA和9条MCA。国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)的基线中位数如下:接受RP治疗的为16分(范围5 - 25分;81%≥10分),接受UK治疗的为17分(范围6 - 38分;85%≥10分)。从症状发作到开始溶栓的平均时间:接受RP治疗的为333±230分钟,接受UK治疗的为343±169分钟。再通率如下:RP治疗组为82%,UK治疗组为64%(P = 0.13)。有症状的ICH发生率如下:RP治疗组为12%,UK治疗组为4.5%(P = 0.50)。死亡率方面,RP治疗组为24%,UK治疗组为27%(P = 0.8)。
尽管本研究的统计学效力有限,但我们的研究表明,虽然动脉内使用RP溶栓显示出再通率和出血率较高的趋势,但与UK或动脉内使用前尿激酶报道的率相比,动脉内使用RP溶栓在再通、预后、死亡率和ICH方面并无显著差异。