Strbian Daniel, Mustanoja Satu, Pekkola Johanna, Putaala Jukka, Haapaniemi Elena, Paananen Tapio, Kaste Markku, Lappalainen Kimmo, Tatlisumak Turgut
Department of Neurology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Int J Stroke. 2015 Feb;10(2):188-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00918.x. Epub 2012 Sep 27.
To compare outcome of ischaemic stroke patients undergoing rescue endovascular procedure for proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion with matched patients without endovascular procedure after unsuccessful intravenous thrombolysis.
Endovascularly treated patients with middle cerebral artery occlusion (n = 41) were matched by propensity score with similar patients treated by intravenous thrombolysis and having a considerable post-thrombolysis neurological deficit (n = 82). We compared their three-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale) and frequency of symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage. For the endovascular group, we report onset-to-puncture time, onset-to-recanalization time, and recanalization rates.
In age, gender, time from onset, admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, blood glucose, history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidaemia, atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure, and in aetiology, the groups were similar. Endovascular group patients had a recanalization rate of 90%, and more often reached three-month modified Rankin Scale 0-2 (36.6% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.03). Mortality was equally common (19.5%) in both groups, and frequency of symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage was 9.8% vs. 14.6% (P = 0.45). The endovascular group's median onset-to-puncture time was four-hours and six-minutes and onset-to-recanalization time was five-hours and 12 min. The latter time was more than one-hour longer in patients treated under general anaesthesia compared with patients treated under conscious sedation (median four-hours 50 min vs. five-hours 58 min; P < 0.01).
Rescue endovascular approach increases likelihood of recanalization and may improve functional outcome in acute ischaemic stroke patients with proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion who did not respond to intravenous thrombolysis.
比较接受挽救性血管内治疗的大脑中动脉近端闭塞缺血性卒中患者与静脉溶栓失败后未接受血管内治疗的匹配患者的结局。
对接受血管内治疗的大脑中动脉闭塞患者(n = 41),通过倾向评分与接受静脉溶栓且溶栓后有明显神经功能缺损的类似患者(n = 82)进行匹配。比较他们的三个月结局(改良Rankin量表)和症状性颅内出血的发生率。对于血管内治疗组,我们报告了发病至穿刺时间、发病至再通时间和再通率。
在年龄、性别、发病时间、入院时美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表评分、收缩压和舒张压、血糖、高血压病史、糖尿病、高脂血症、心房颤动和充血性心力衰竭以及病因方面,两组相似。血管内治疗组患者的再通率为90%,且更常达到三个月改良Rankin量表0 - 2级(36.6%对18.3%,P = 0.03)。两组的死亡率同样常见(19.5%),症状性颅内出血的发生率分别为9.8%和14.6%(P = 0.45)。血管内治疗组的中位发病至穿刺时间为4小时6分钟,发病至再通时间为5小时12分钟。与清醒镇静下治疗的患者相比,全身麻醉下治疗的患者的后者时间长超过1小时(中位4小时50分钟对5小时58分钟;P < 0.01)。
挽救性血管内治疗方法可提高再通的可能性,并可能改善对静脉溶栓无反应的急性缺血性卒中大脑中动脉近端闭塞患者的功能结局。