Marks Michael P, Lansberg Maarten G, Mlynash Michael, Kemp Stephanie, McTaggart Ryan, Zaharchuk Greg, Bammer Roland, Albers Gregory W
Departments of Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA Stanford Stroke Center, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA.
Stanford Stroke Center, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA Departments of Neurology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2014 Dec;6(10):724-8. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2013-010973. Epub 2013 Dec 18.
To understand how three commonly used measures of endovascular therapy correlate with clinical outcome and infarct growth.
Prospectively enrolled patients underwent baseline MRI and started endovascular therapy within 12 h of stroke onset. The final angiogram was given a primary arterial occlusive lesion (AOL) recanalization score (0-3), a Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score (0-3) and a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) score (0-3). The scores were dichotomized into poor revascularization (AOL 0-2, TIMI 0-1 and TICI 0-2a) versus good revascularization (AOL 3, TIMI 2-3, TICI 2b-3). Patients were classified according to whether or not they had target mismatch (TMM). Good outcome was defined as a 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.
Endovascular treatment was attempted in 100. A good outcome was achieved in 57% of patients with a TICI score of 2b-3 and in 24% of patients with a TICI score of 0-2a (p=0.001). Patients with TIMI scores of 2-3 and an AOL score of 3 had lower rates of good outcome (44% and 47%, respectively), which were not significantly better than those with TIMI scores of 0-1 or AOL scores of 0-2. In patients with TMM, these rates of good outcome improved with all the scoring systems and were significantly better for TIMI and TICI scores. Patients with a TICI score of 2a had rates of good functional outcome and lesion growth which were not different from those with TICI scores of 0-1 but were significantly worse than those with TICI scores of 2b-3.
TIMI 2-3 and TICI 2b-3 reperfusion scores demonstrated improved outcome in patients with tissue mismatch with a small infarct core and a larger hypoperfused region but AOL scores did not. Patients with a TICI score of 2a had a poorer outcome and more lesion growth than those with TICI scores of 2b-3.
了解血管内治疗的三种常用测量方法与临床结局及梗死灶扩大之间的相关性。
前瞻性纳入的患者接受了基线磁共振成像(MRI)检查,并在卒中发作后12小时内开始血管内治疗。对最终血管造影给予主要动脉闭塞病变(AOL)再通评分(0 - 3分)、心肌梗死溶栓(TIMI)评分(0 - 3分)和脑梗死溶栓(TICI)评分(0 - 3分)。这些评分被分为再灌注不良(AOL 0 - 2分、TIMI 0 - 1分和TICI 0 - 2a分)与再灌注良好(AOL 3分、TIMI 2 - 3分、TICI 2b - 3分)。患者根据是否存在目标不匹配(TMM)进行分类。良好结局定义为90天改良Rankin量表评分为0 - 2分。
100例患者尝试了血管内治疗。TICI评分为2b - 3分的患者中有57%取得了良好结局,而TICI评分为0 - 2a分的患者中有24%取得了良好结局(p = 0.001)。TIMI评分为2 - 3分且AOL评分为3分的患者良好结局发生率较低(分别为44%和47%),并不显著优于TIMI评分为0 - 1分或AOL评分为0 - 2分的患者。在存在TMM的患者中,所有评分系统的良好结局发生率均有所提高,且TIMI和TICI评分的改善更为显著。TICI评分为2a分的患者良好功能结局发生率和病变扩大情况与TICI评分为0 - 1分的患者无差异,但显著差于TICI评分为2b - 3分的患者。
TIMI 2 - 3分和TICI 2b - 3分的再灌注评分显示,对于梗死核心较小且灌注不足区域较大的组织不匹配患者,结局有所改善,但AOL评分未显示出这种情况。TICI评分为2a分的患者比TICI评分为2b - 3分的患者结局更差,病变扩大更明显。