Mourand I, Milhaud D, Arquizan C, Lobotesis K, Schaub R, Machi P, Ayrignac X, Eker O F, Bonafé A, Costalat V
From Departments of Neurology (I.M., D.M., C.A., X.A.)
From Departments of Neurology (I.M., D.M., C.A., X.A.).
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Jan;37(1):88-93. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4574. Epub 2015 Nov 5.
Standard selection criteria for revascularization therapy usually exclude patients with unclear-onset stroke. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of revascularization therapy in patients with unclear-onset stroke in the anterior circulation and to identify the predictive factors for favorable clinical outcome.
We retrospectively analyzed 41 consecutive patients presenting with acute stroke with unknown time of onset treated by intravenous thrombolysis and/or mechanical thrombectomy. Only patients without well-developed fluid-attenuated inversion recovery changes of acute diffusion lesions on MR imaging were enrolled. Twenty-one patients were treated by intravenous thrombolysis; 19 received, simultaneously, intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy (as a bridging therapy); and 1 patient, endovascular therapy alone. Clinical outcome was evaluated at 90 days by using the mRS. Mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were also reported.
Median patient age was 72 years (range, 17-89 years). Mean initial NIHSS score was 14.5 ± 5.7. Successful recanalization (TICI 2b-3) was assessed in 61% of patients presenting with an arterial occlusion, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 2 patients (4.9%), and 3 (7.3%) patients died. After 90 days, favorable outcome (mRS 0-2) was observed in 25 (61%) patients. Following multivariate analysis, initial NIHSS score (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.82; P = .003) and bridging therapy (OR, 37.92; 95% CI, 2.43-591.35; P = .009) were independently associated with a favorable outcome at 3 months.
The study demonstrates the safety and good clinical outcome of acute recanalization therapy in patients with acute stroke in the anterior circulation and an unknown time of onset and a DWI/FLAIR mismatch on imaging. Moreover, bridging therapy versus intravenous thrombolysis alone was independently associated with favorable outcome at 3 months.
血管再通治疗的标准选择标准通常会排除发病时间不明确的中风患者。我们的目的是评估血管再通治疗在前循环发病时间不明确的中风患者中的疗效和安全性,并确定良好临床结局的预测因素。
我们回顾性分析了41例连续出现急性中风且发病时间未知的患者,这些患者接受了静脉溶栓和/或机械取栓治疗。仅纳入在磁共振成像上没有急性扩散病变的明显液体衰减反转恢复变化的患者。21例患者接受了静脉溶栓治疗;19例同时接受了静脉溶栓和机械取栓治疗(作为桥接治疗);1例仅接受了血管内治疗。在90天时使用改良Rankin量表(mRS)评估临床结局。还报告了死亡率和症状性颅内出血情况。
患者中位年龄为72岁(范围17 - 89岁)。初始美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分平均为14.5±5.7。在出现动脉闭塞的患者中,61%评估为成功再通(脑梗死溶栓分级2b - 3级),2例患者(4.9%)发生症状性颅内出血,3例(7.3%)患者死亡。90天后,25例(61%)患者观察到良好结局(mRS 0 - 2)。多因素分析后,初始NIHSS评分(比值比[OR],1.43;95%置信区间[CI],1.13 - 1.82;P = 0.003)和桥接治疗(OR,37.92;95% CI,2.43 - 591.35;P = 0.009)与3个月时的良好结局独立相关。
该研究证明了急性再通治疗在前循环急性中风且发病时间未知且影像学上存在弥散加权成像/液体衰减反转恢复不匹配的患者中的安全性和良好临床结局。此外,桥接治疗与单纯静脉溶栓相比,在3个月时与良好结局独立相关。