Stroke Unit and Department of Neurology, "Carlo Poma" Hospital, Strada Lago Paiolo 10, 46100, Mantua, Italy,
Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2014 Jan;14(1):416. doi: 10.1007/s11910-013-0416-6.
The perceived advantages of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in terms of recanalization, the multimodal and targeted approaches, and perhaps the more permissive rules on devices than on medications for their licensing favored the assumption that endovascular treatment is superior to intravenous thrombolysis for acute treatment of ischemic stroke, and its adoption in more advanced stroke centers. However, this assumption has been questioned by recent clinical trial experience showing that endovascular treatment is not superior to intravenous thrombolysis. The new evidence has changed the perception and the importance of conducting randomized trials in this area. This summary examines the background and outcomes of the latest experience with endovascular techniques in acute stroke treatment based on historical data. The new challenge is how to study the latest generation of devices called stent retrievers, which are faster in recanalizing and easier to use, in selected patients with acute ischemic stroke. In the meantime, the available evidence does not provide support for the use of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke in clinical practice.
血管内治疗急性缺血性卒中在再通、多模态和靶向治疗方面的优势,以及在设备许可方面比药物更宽松的规则,使得人们假设血管内治疗优于静脉溶栓治疗急性缺血性卒中,并在更先进的卒中中心采用。然而,最近的临床试验经验表明,血管内治疗并不优于静脉溶栓,这一假设受到了质疑。新的证据改变了人们对这一领域进行随机试验的看法和重要性。本综述根据历史数据,探讨了急性卒中治疗中血管内技术的最新经验的背景和结果。新的挑战是如何在急性缺血性卒中的选定患者中研究新一代称为支架取栓器的设备,这些设备在再通方面更快,使用更方便。同时,现有证据并不支持在临床实践中使用血管内治疗急性缺血性卒中。