Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
J Neurosurg. 2011 Aug;115(2):359-63. doi: 10.3171/2011.3.JNS101514. Epub 2011 Apr 15.
Stroke patients whose condition does not improve after intravenous administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) may be candidates for endovascular intervention. Patients with new intracerebral hemorrhage noted during such interventions pose a difficult challenge to neurointerventionists and are often sequestered as treatment failures and deemed inappropriate for intraarterial recanalization efforts. The authors present a case in which aggressive intervention was performed despite evidence of contrast extravasation on preintervention angiography. This 37-year-old woman presented with an occlusion of the M(1) segment of the left middle cerebral artery and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 24. She received intravenous tPA without improvement. Angiography revealed M(1) thrombus as well as active contrast extravasation without arterial displacement. Thromboaspiration was performed in light of her known hemorrhage with excellent recanalization. Immediate postprocedure imaging demonstrated a large insular hematoma and emergent craniectomy and hematoma evacuation were performed. At 4 months' follow-up, the patient was living at home, was ambulating, and had excellent comprehension with mild expressive aphasia. There is little peer-reviewed data in the literature to aid in the decision-making process when contrast extravasation is recognized at the time of preinterevention angiography. Continuation of mechanical endovascular stroke intervention, in light of active contrast extravasation, may be warranted in young patients with major deficits and absence of arterial displacement or delayed global filling. Further thrombolytics are not advised. In select stroke patients, continuation of a planned attempt at mechanical recanalization without the further use of thrombolytics may be warranted in light of known intracerebral hemorrhage.
静脉注射组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(tPA)后病情仍未改善的中风患者可能是血管内介入治疗的候选者。在这些介入治疗过程中发现的新的颅内出血会给神经介入医师带来很大的挑战,通常被视为治疗失败,不适合进行动脉内再通治疗。作者报告了一例尽管在术前血管造影中发现有造影剂外渗,但仍积极进行介入治疗的病例。该患者为 37 岁女性,左侧大脑中动脉 M1 段闭塞,美国国立卫生研究院中风量表评分为 24 分。她接受了静脉注射 tPA 但病情没有改善。血管造影显示 M1 血栓和活动性造影剂外渗,没有动脉移位。鉴于已知的出血,进行了血栓抽吸术,结果显示血管再通良好。术后即刻成像显示岛叶血肿较大,紧急开颅减压和血肿清除术。4 个月随访时,患者生活在家中,可步行,理解能力极好,仅伴有轻度表达性失语。在术前血管造影时发现造影剂外渗的情况下,如何进行决策,目前文献中几乎没有同行评审的数据。对于有严重缺损且没有动脉移位或延迟性全脑灌注的年轻患者,即使有活动性造影剂外渗,继续进行机械性血管内卒中介入治疗可能是合理的。不建议进一步使用溶栓药物。在某些中风患者中,已知存在颅内出血的情况下,继续计划进行机械再通尝试而不进一步使用溶栓药物可能是合理的。