Comprehensive Stroke Center, University of Alabama Hospital, Birmingham, AL 35249 3280, USA.
Int J Stroke. 2011 Apr;6(2):118-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2010.00559.x. Epub 2010 Dec 23.
An uncontrolled clinical study of the Penumbra(™) system showed high rates of recanalisation and relatively poor functional outcomes that were inadequately compared with historic controls. We aimed to compare the findings in Penumbra with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator trials that determined recanalisation (Combined Lysis Of Thrombus in Brain ischaemia using transcranial Ultrasound and Systemic tissue plasminogen activator and Transcranial Ultrasound in Clinical Sonothrombolysis).
Control patients treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and intermittent ultrasound surveillance had National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores >7. The Penumbra trial definition of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was used. Revascularisation was defined using thrombolysis in brain ischaemia scores predictive of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grades and compared with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction data from Penumbra. Favourable functional outcomes was defined as a modified Rankin Scale of 0-2.
Pretreatment stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score) was 17.6 ± 5.2 points in Penumbra patients (n = 125) and 16.3 ± 5.3 in controls (n = 68; P = 0.101). The control group was older compared with Penumbra (68.8 ± 13.4 vs. 63.5 ± 13.5-years; P = 0.010). Time-to-treatment initiation was on average 2 h later (2.3 ± 0.6 vs. 4.3 ± 1.5 h; P < 0.001) in Penumbra. The rate of any revascularisation after treatment with Penumbra was higher than that following intravenous thrombolysis: 82% (54% thrombolysis in myocardial infarction II and 27% thrombolysis in myocardial infarction III) vs. 40% (25% partial, 15% complete revascularisation), P < 0.001. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage tended to be higher with Penumbra (11.2% vs. 4.4%; P = 0.182, Fisher's exact test). At three-months, mortality with Penumbra was higher (32.8%) than controls (14.1%; P = 0.006). Favourable functional outcomes were higher in historic controls (39% vs. 25%; P = 0.046).
Despite lower revascularisation rates, patients treated with systemic thrombolysis achieved better functional outcomes likely due to earlier treatment initiation. These data indicate that it is unrealistic to expect primary intraarterial revascularisation to be any better than systemic plasminogen activator within the 3-h time window. Improvements in the speed of delivery and performance of intraarterial reperfusion are needed.
一项未经控制的 Penumbra(™)系统临床研究显示,再通率较高,但功能结局相对较差,且与历史对照相比不够充分。我们旨在比较 Penumbra 与静脉组织型纤溶酶原激活剂试验的结果,后者确定了再通(使用经颅超声和系统组织型纤溶酶原激活剂联合治疗脑缺血的血栓溶解和经颅超声临床溶栓)。
接受静脉组织型纤溶酶原激活剂治疗且间歇性超声监测的对照患者的国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分>7。使用 Penumbra 试验定义的症状性颅内出血。再通通过溶栓治疗脑缺血评分来定义,该评分可预测溶栓治疗心肌梗死的血流等级,并与 Penumbra 的溶栓治疗心肌梗死数据进行比较。良好的功能结局定义为改良 Rankin 量表评分为 0-2。
Penumbra 患者(n=125)的预处理卒中严重程度(国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分)为 17.6±5.2 分,对照组(n=68)为 16.3±5.3 分(P=0.101)。对照组比 Penumbra 组年龄更大(68.8±13.4 岁 vs. 63.5±13.5 岁;P=0.010)。Penumbra 组的平均治疗起始时间比对照组晚 2 小时(2.3±0.6 小时 vs. 4.3±1.5 小时;P<0.001)。使用 Penumbra 治疗后的任何再通率均高于静脉溶栓治疗后的再通率:82%(54%溶栓治疗心肌梗死 II 级和 27%溶栓治疗心肌梗死 III 级)与 40%(25%部分再通,15%完全再通),P<0.001。症状性颅内出血在 Penumbra 组中更常见(11.2% vs. 4.4%;P=0.182,Fisher 确切检验)。三个月时,Penumbra 组的死亡率(32.8%)高于对照组(14.1%)(P=0.006)。历史对照组的良好功能结局更高(39% vs. 25%;P=0.046)。
尽管再通率较低,但接受全身溶栓治疗的患者的功能结局更好,这可能是由于治疗起始时间更早。这些数据表明,在 3 小时的时间窗内,预期直接动脉内再通会优于全身纤溶酶原激活剂是不现实的。需要改进输送速度和动脉内再灌注的性能。