Department of Neurology, Stroke Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011 Mar-Apr;20(2):124-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2009.10.010. Epub 2010 Jul 3.
Little is known about the risk of thrombolysis in patients with malignancy, because these patients have been excluded from most clinical trials. We reviewed our acute ischemic stroke (AIS) database for clinical outcomes and complications in patients with current malignancy (CM) who received thrombolytic therapy. Consecutive AIS patients receiving thrombolysis between January 2003 and December 2006 were retrospectively abstracted in accordance with the American Stroke Association's Get With the Guidelines-Stroke definitions and charts were reviewed for history of malignancy. Patients with brain metastases did not receive tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Of 308 AIS patients treated with thrombolytic therapy, 210 (68%) received intravenous (IV) tPA only, 41 (13%) received IV tPA plus intra-arterial therapy (IAT), and 57 (18%) received IAT only. Eighteen patients (5.8%) had a CM, and 26 patients (8.4%) had a remote history of malignancy. Patients with CM had a higher in-hospital mortality (38.9% vs 19.7 %; P=.05) and were more likely to have died due to worsening medical comorbidity (71.4% vs 9.6%; P < .001). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) was similar in the 2 groups (5.6% vs 2.7%; P=.47). In multivariate analysis, the only independent predictors of mortality were National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, history of hypertension, and smoking. CM was not independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality following thrombolysis. Mortality was attributable largely to medical comorbidities, not to symptomatic ICH. Our data suggest that thrombolysis may be a reasonable option for patients with malignancy who have acceptable medical comorbidities and performance status. Further research is warranted.
关于恶性肿瘤患者溶栓的风险知之甚少,因为这些患者已被大多数临床试验排除在外。我们回顾了我们的急性缺血性卒中(AIS)数据库,以了解接受溶栓治疗的当前恶性肿瘤(CM)患者的临床结果和并发症。按照美国卒中协会的 Get With the Guidelines-Stroke 定义,回顾性分析了 2003 年 1 月至 2006 年 12 月期间接受溶栓治疗的连续 AIS 患者,并对恶性肿瘤病史进行了图表回顾。脑转移瘤患者未接受组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(tPA)治疗。逐步逻辑回归用于确定院内死亡率的独立预测因素。在接受溶栓治疗的 308 名 AIS 患者中,210 名(68%)仅接受静脉(IV)tPA 治疗,41 名(13%)接受 IV tPA 加动脉内治疗(IAT),57 名(18%)仅接受 IAT 治疗。18 名患者(5.8%)患有 CM,26 名患者(8.4%)有恶性肿瘤的既往病史。CM 患者的院内死亡率较高(38.9% vs 19.7%;P=.05),且更有可能因恶化的合并症而死亡(71.4% vs 9.6%;P <.001)。两组患者的症状性颅内出血(ICH)发生率相似(5.6% vs 2.7%;P=.47)。在多变量分析中,死亡率的唯一独立预测因素是国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分、高血压病史和吸烟。CM 与溶栓后院内死亡率增加无独立相关性。死亡率主要归因于合并症,而不是症状性 ICH。我们的数据表明,对于具有可接受的合并症和表现状态的恶性肿瘤患者,溶栓可能是一种合理的选择。需要进一步的研究。