Department of Radiology, Divisions of Interventional, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Stroke. 2012 Sep;43(9):2356-61. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.650713. Epub 2012 Jun 28.
Conflicting data exist regarding outcomes after intra-arterial therapy (IAT) in elderly stroke patients. We compare safety and clinical outcomes of multimodal IAT in elderly versus nonelderly patients and investigate differences in baseline health and disability as possible explanatory factors.
Data from a prospectively collected institutional IAT database were analyzed comparing elderly (80 years or older) versus nonelderly patients. Baseline demographics, angiographic reperfusion (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale score 2-3), rate of parenchymal hematoma type 2, and 90-day modified Rankin Scale scores were compared in univariate and multivariate analyses.
There were 49 elderly and 130 nonelderly patients treated between 2005 and 2010. Between the 2 cohorts, there was no significant difference in Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2 to 3 reperfusion (71% vs 75%; P=0.57), time to reperfusion (P=0.77), or rate of parenchymal hematoma type 2 (4% vs 7%; P=0.73) after IAT. However, elderly patients had significantly lower rates of good outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2: 2% vs 33%; P<0.0001) and higher mortality (59% vs 24%; P<0.0001) at 90 days. Atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, hypertension, hyperlipidema, and baseline disability were significantly more common in elderly patients. Adjusting for baseline disability, stroke severity, and reperfusion, elderly patients were 29-times more likely to be dependent or dead at 90 days (odds ratio, 28.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-255.7; P=0.003).
Despite comparable rates of reperfusion and significant hemorrhage, elderly patients had worse clinical outcomes after IAT, which may relate, in part, to worse baseline health and disability. The use of IAT in the elderly should be performed after a careful analysis of the potential risks and benefits.
关于老年脑卒中患者接受动脉内治疗(IAT)后的结局,目前仍存在相互矛盾的数据。我们比较了多模态 IAT 治疗老年与非老年患者的安全性和临床结局,并探讨了基线健康状况和残疾程度的差异,这些差异可能是解释因素。
对一项前瞻性收集的机构 IAT 数据库的数据进行了分析,比较了 80 岁及以上的老年患者与非老年患者。在单变量和多变量分析中比较了基线人口统计学特征、血管造影再灌注(血栓溶解治疗脑梗死评分 2-3 分)、实质血肿 2 型发生率和 90 天改良 Rankin 量表评分。
2005 年至 2010 年间,共治疗了 49 例老年患者和 130 例非老年患者。在这两组患者中,IAT 后血栓溶解治疗脑梗死 2 至 3 级再灌注率(71%比 75%;P=0.57)、再灌注时间(P=0.77)或实质血肿 2 型发生率(4%比 7%;P=0.73)无显著差异。然而,老年患者 90 天的良好结局(改良 Rankin 量表评分 0-2 分:2%比 33%;P<0.0001)和死亡率(59%比 24%;P<0.0001)均显著较低。老年患者心房颤动、冠状动脉疾病、高血压、高脂血症和基线残疾更为常见。调整基线残疾、卒中严重程度和再灌注后,老年患者 90 天内依赖或死亡的可能性是 29 倍(优势比,28.7;95%置信区间,3.2-255.7;P=0.003)。
尽管再灌注率相似且显著出血发生率较高,但老年患者 IAT 后的临床结局较差,这可能部分与基线健康状况和残疾程度较差有关。在仔细分析潜在风险和获益后,方可对老年患者使用 IAT。