Phan Kevin, Zhao Dong Fang, Phan Steven, Huo Ya Ruth, Mobbs Ralph J, Rao Prashanth J, Mortimer Alex M
NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Prince of Wales Private Hospital, University of New South Wales, Barker Street, Randwick, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Jul;29:38-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2015.12.025. Epub 2016 Mar 2.
One of the primary strategies for the management of acute ischemic stroke is intravenous (IV) thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA). Over the past decade, endovascular therapies such as the use of stent retrievers to perform mechanical thrombectomy have been found to improve functional outcomes compared to t-PA alone. We aimed to reassess the functional outcomes and complications of IV thrombolysis with and without endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke using conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Pooled relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the effect of IV thrombolysis with and without endovascular therapy on functional outcome, mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH). Trial sequential analysis was done to strengthen the meta-analysis. We analyzed six randomized controlled trials involving 1943 patients. Patients who received IV thrombolysis with endovascular treatment showed significantly higher rates of excellent functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-1) (RR, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.29-2.39]) compared to those who received IV thrombolysis alone. A similar association was seen for good functional outcomes (mRS 0-2) (RR, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.24-1.96]). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated endovascular treatment increased the RR of a good functional outcome by at least 30% compared to IV thrombolysis alone. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality for mechanical thrombectomy compared to IV thrombolysis alone or the incidence of SICH at 3month follow-up. Endovascular treatment is more likely to result in a better functional outcome for patients compared to IV thrombolysis alone for acute ischemic stroke.
急性缺血性卒中管理的主要策略之一是静脉注射组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(t-PA)进行溶栓治疗。在过去十年中,与单独使用t-PA相比,血管内治疗(如使用支架取栓器进行机械取栓)已被发现能改善功能预后。我们旨在通过传统的荟萃分析和试验序贯分析,重新评估急性缺血性卒中在接受和未接受血管内治疗情况下静脉溶栓的功能预后和并发症。计算了接受和未接受血管内治疗的静脉溶栓对功能预后、死亡率和症状性颅内出血(SICH)影响的合并相对风险(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)。进行试验序贯分析以加强荟萃分析。我们分析了六项涉及1943例患者的随机对照试验。与单独接受静脉溶栓的患者相比,接受静脉溶栓联合血管内治疗的患者显示出显著更高的良好功能预后率(改良Rankin量表[mRS]0 - 1)(RR,1.75[95%CI,1.29 - 2.39])。对于良好功能预后(mRS 0 - 2)也观察到类似的关联(RR,1.56[95%CI,1.24 - 1.96])。试验序贯分析表明,与单独静脉溶栓相比,血管内治疗使良好功能预后的RR至少增加30%。与单独静脉溶栓相比,机械取栓的全因死亡率或3个月随访时的SICH发生率没有显著差异。对于急性缺血性卒中患者,与单独静脉溶栓相比,血管内治疗更有可能带来更好的功能预后。