Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
Department of Neurology, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Korea.
J Stroke. 2016 May;18(2):211-9. doi: 10.5853/jos.2016.00031. Epub 2016 May 31.
Recent advances in intra-arterial techniques and thrombectomy devices lead to high rate of recanalization. However, little is known regarding the effect of the evolvement of endovascular revascularization therapy (ERT) in acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO). We compared the outcome of endovascular mechanical thrombectomy (EMT) versus intra-arterial fibrinolysis (IAF)-based ERT in patients with acute BAO.
After retrospectively reviewed a registry of consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent ERT from September 2003 to February 2015, 57 patients with acute BAO within 12 hours from stroke onset were enrolled. They were categorized as an IAF group (n=24) and EMT group (n=33) according to the primary technical option. We compared the procedural and clinical outcomes between the groups.
The time from groin puncture to recanalization was significantly shorter in the EMT group than in the IAF group (48.5 [25.3 to 87.8] vs. 92 [44 to 179] minutes; P=0.02) The rate of complete recanalization was significantly higher in the EMT group than in the IAF group (87.9% vs 41.7%; P<0.01). The good outcome of the modified Rankin Scale score≤2 at 3 months was more frequent in the EMT group than in the IAF group, but it was not statistically significant (39.4% vs 16.7%; P=0.06).
EMT-based ERT in patients with acute BAO is superior to IAF-based ERT in terms of the reduction of time from groin puncture to recanalization and the improvement of the rate of complete recanalization.
动脉内技术和血栓切除术装置的最新进展导致再通率很高。然而,关于血管内再血管化治疗(ERT)的演变对急性基底动脉闭塞(BAO)的影响知之甚少。我们比较了急性 BAO 患者血管内机械血栓切除术(EMT)与动脉内溶栓(IAF)为基础的 ERT 的结果。
回顾性分析了 2003 年 9 月至 2015 年 2 月连续接受 ERT 的急性缺血性脑卒中患者的登记资料,纳入了 57 例发病 12 小时内的急性 BAO 患者。根据主要技术选择,将患者分为 IAF 组(n=24)和 EMT 组(n=33)。比较两组的手术和临床结局。
EMT 组的股动脉穿刺至再通时间明显短于 IAF 组(48.5[25.387.8] vs. 92[44179]分钟;P=0.02),完全再通率 EMT 组明显高于 IAF 组(87.9% vs. 41.7%;P<0.01)。3 个月时改良 Rankin 量表评分≤2 的良好结局 EMT 组多于 IAF 组,但差异无统计学意义(39.4% vs. 16.7%;P=0.06)。
EMT 为基础的 ERT 治疗急性 BAO 在缩短股动脉穿刺至再通时间和提高完全再通率方面优于 IAF 为基础的 ERT。