To Chiu Yuen, Rajamand Sina, Mehra Ratnesh, Falatko Stephanie, Badr Yaser, Richards Boyd, Qahwash Omar, Fessler Richard D
Providence Hospital and Medical Center, Southfield, MI, USA.
Badr Medical Corperation, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Acta Radiol Open. 2015 Sep 10;4(9):2058460115599423. doi: 10.1177/2058460115599423. eCollection 2015 Sep.
Although initial studies of neuroendovascular intervention did not review benefit over intravenous thrombolytics (iv r-tPA), recent studies have suggested otherwise. Elderly patients (age ≥80 years) are typically excluded from clinical trials.
To examine the utility of mechanical thrombectomy based on patient outcomes.
All stroke-alert activations at our health system from January 2011 to June 2014 were examined. All patients aged ≥80 years who had undergone mechanical thrombectomy were identified. Clinical characteristics included physiologic imaging findings, use of intravenous thrombolytics, baseline and postoperative National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scores (TICI), and discharge destination.
Mean NIHSS on presentation was 18.2 (range, 6-31), and 13.3 (range, 3-30) post thrombectomy. Three (16.6%) patients received iv r-tPA, two (11.1%) had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Eight (44.4%) died, eight (44.4%) were discharged to nursing homes, and two (11.7%) were discharged to inpatient rehab and subsequently home. Favorable outcome was achieved in five (27.7%) patients. Fourteen (77.7%) patients had physiologic imaging prior to intervention. Three (75%) of four patients who did not have physiologic imaging prior to thrombectomy died. Thirteen (66.6%) patients had TICI 3 recanalization.
Our study showed that although there remains a role of mechanical thrombectomy in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke in very elderly patients, it is associated with significant higher morbidity and mortality compared to younger patients, but should remain a very viable treatment option when quality of life is the most important consideration.
尽管神经血管内介入治疗的初步研究未评估其相对于静脉溶栓(静脉注射重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂[r-tPA])的益处,但近期研究表明情况并非如此。老年患者(年龄≥80岁)通常被排除在临床试验之外。
根据患者预后情况研究机械取栓术的效用。
对2011年1月至2014年6月期间我们医疗系统内所有卒中警报激活情况进行了检查。确定了所有年龄≥80岁且接受过机械取栓术的患者。临床特征包括生理影像学检查结果、静脉溶栓的使用情况、基线及术后美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分、脑梗死溶栓评分(TICI)以及出院去向。
就诊时NIHSS平均评分为18.2(范围6 - 31),取栓术后为13.3(范围3 - 30)。3例(16.6%)患者接受了静脉注射r-tPA,2例(11.1%)发生有症状性颅内出血。8例(44.4%)患者死亡,8例(44.4%)出院后入住疗养院,2例(11.7%)出院后入住住院康复机构,随后回家。5例(27.7%)患者获得了良好预后。14例(77.7%)患者在干预前进行了生理影像学检查。4例在取栓术前未进行生理影像学检查的患者中有3例(75%)死亡。13例(66.6%)患者实现了TICI 3级再通。
我们的研究表明,尽管机械取栓术在治疗高龄急性缺血性卒中患者中仍有作用,但与年轻患者相比,其发病率和死亡率显著更高,不过当生活质量是最重要的考虑因素时,它仍应是一个非常可行的治疗选择。