Al Kasab Sami, Almadidy Zayed, Spiotta Alejandro M, Turk Aquilla S, Chaudry M Imran, Hungerford John P, Turner Raymond D
Department of Neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Medical University of South Carolina, School of Medicine, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2017 Oct;9(10):948-951. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012529. Epub 2016 Aug 8.
Acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) can result from thromboemboli or underlying intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD). Although the technique for revascularization differs significantly for these two lesions (simple thrombectomy for thromboemboli and balloon angioplasty and stenting for ICAD), the underlying etiology is often unknown in acute ischemic stroke (AIS).
To evaluate whether procedural complications, revascularization rates, and functional outcomes differ among patients with LVO from ICAD or thromboembolism.
A retrospective review of thrombectomy cases from 2008 to 2015 was carried out for cases of AIS due to underlying ICAD. Thirty-six patients were identified. A chart and imaging review was performed to determine revascularization rates, periprocedural complications, and functional outcomes. Patients with ICAD and acute LVO were compared with those with underlying thromboemboli.
Among patients with ICAD and LVO, mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score on admission was 12.9±8.5, revascularization (Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction, TICI ≥2b) was achieved in 22/34 (64.7%) patients, 11% had postprocedural intracerebral hemorrhage (PH2), and 14/33 (42.4%) had achieved a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at the 3-month follow-up. Compared with patients without underlying ICAD, there was no difference in NIHSS on presentation, or in the postprocedural complication rate. However, procedure times for ICAD were longer (98.5±59.8 vs 37.1±34.2 min), there was significant difference in successful revascularization rate between the groups (p=0.001), and a trend towards difference in functional outcome at 3 months (p=0.07).
Despite AIS with underlying ICAD requiring a more complex, technically demanding recanalization strategy than traditional thromboembolic AIS, it appears safe, and good outcomes are obtainable.
急性大血管闭塞(LVO)可由血栓栓塞或潜在的颅内动脉粥样硬化疾病(ICAD)引起。尽管这两种病变的血管再通技术有显著差异(血栓栓塞采用单纯血栓切除术,ICAD采用球囊血管成形术和支架置入术),但在急性缺血性卒中(AIS)中,其潜在病因往往不明。
评估ICAD或血栓栓塞所致LVO患者的手术并发症、血管再通率和功能结局是否存在差异。
对2008年至2015年因潜在ICAD导致AIS的血栓切除术病例进行回顾性研究。共确定36例患者。通过查阅病历和影像学资料来确定血管再通率、围手术期并发症和功能结局。将ICAD和急性LVO患者与潜在血栓栓塞患者进行比较。
在ICAD和LVO患者中,入院时美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)平均评分为12.9±8.5,22/34(64.7%)例患者实现血管再通(脑梗死溶栓,TICI≥2b),11%发生术后脑出血(PH2),14/33(42.4%)例患者在3个月随访时改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分为0 - 2。与无潜在ICAD的患者相比,就诊时NIHSS评分及术后并发症发生率无差异。然而,ICAD患者的手术时间更长(98.5±59.8对37.1±34.2分钟),两组间成功血管再通率有显著差异(p = 0.001),3个月时功能结局有差异趋势(p = 0.07)。
尽管潜在ICAD所致AIS需要比传统血栓栓塞性AIS更复杂、技术要求更高的再通策略,但似乎是安全的,且可获得良好结局。