Hussain Mohammed, Moussavi Mohammad, Korya Daniel, Mehta Siddhart, Brar Jaskiran, Chahal Harina, Qureshi Ihtesham, Mehta Tapan, Ahmad Javaad, Zaidat Osama O, Kirmani Jawad F
Stroke and Neurovascular Center, JFK Medical Center, Edison, N.J., USA.
Department of Neurology, Hartford Hospital, University of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn., USA.
Interv Neurol. 2016 Jun;5(1-2):39-50. doi: 10.1159/000442355. Epub 2016 Mar 8.
Recent advances in the treatment of ischemic stroke have focused on revascularization and led to better clinical and functional outcomes. A systematic review and pooled analyses of 6 recent multicentered prospective randomized controlled trials (MPRCT) were performed to compare intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV tPA) and endovascular therapy (intervention) with IV tPA alone (control) for anterior circulation ischemic stroke (AIS) secondary to large vessel occlusion (LVO).
Six MPRCTs (MR CLEAN, ESCAPE, EXTEND IA, SWIFT PRIME, REVASCAT and THERAPY) incorporating image-based LVO AIS were selected for assessing the following: (1) prespecified primary clinical outcomes of AIS patients in intervention and control arms: good outcomes were defined by a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 90 days; (2) secondary clinical outcomes were: (a) revascularization rates [favorable outcomes defined as modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale (mTICI) score of 2b/3]; (b) symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) rates and mortality; (c) derivation of number needed to harm (NNH), number needed to treat (NNT), and relative percent difference (RPD) between intervention and control groups, and (d) random effects model to determine overall significance (forest and funnel plots).
A total of 1,386 patients were included. Good outcomes at 90 days were seen in 46% of patients in the intervention (p < 0.00001) and in 27% of patients in the control groups (p < 0.00002). An mTICI score of 2b/3 was achieved in 70.2% of patients in the intervention arm. The sICH and mortality in the intervention arm compared with the control arm were 4.7 and 14.3% versus 7.9 and 17.8%, respectively. The NNT and NNH in the intervention and control groups were 5.3 and 9.1, respectively. Patients in the intervention arm had a 50.1% (RPD) better chance of achieving a good 90-day outcome as compared to controls.
Endovascular therapy combined with IV tPA (in appropriately selected patients) for LVO-related AIS is superior to IV tPA alone. These results support establishing an endovascular therapy in addition to IV tPA as the standard of care for AIS secondary to LVO.
缺血性卒中治疗的最新进展集中在血管再通方面,并带来了更好的临床和功能预后。我们进行了一项系统评价和对6项近期多中心前瞻性随机对照试验(MPRCT)的汇总分析,以比较静脉注射组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(IV tPA)联合血管内治疗(干预组)与单纯静脉注射组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(对照组)用于治疗继发于大血管闭塞(LVO)的前循环缺血性卒中(AIS)的疗效。
选取6项纳入基于影像诊断的LVO-AIS的MPRCT(MR CLEAN、ESCAPE、EXTEND IA、SWIFT PRIME、REVASCAT和THERAPY),以评估以下内容:(1)干预组和对照组AIS患者预先设定的主要临床结局:良好预后定义为90天时改良Rankin量表评分为0 - 2分;(2)次要临床结局为:(a)血管再通率[良好结局定义为改良脑梗死溶栓量表(mTICI)评分为2b/3];(b)症状性颅内出血(sICH)发生率和死亡率;(c)计算干预组和对照组之间的伤害所需人数(NNH)、治疗所需人数(NNT)以及相对百分比差异(RPD),以及(d)采用随机效应模型确定总体显著性(森林图和漏斗图)。
共纳入1386例患者。干预组46%的患者在90天时获得良好预后(p < 0.00001),对照组为27%(p < 0.00002)。干预组70.2%的患者mTICI评分为2b/3。干预组与对照组相比,sICH发生率和死亡率分别为4.7%和14.3%,对照组分别为7.9%和17.8%。干预组和对照组的NNT和NNH分别为5.3和9.1。与对照组相比,干预组患者90天时获得良好结局的可能性高50.1%(RPD)。
对于与LVO相关的AIS,血管内治疗联合IV tPA(在适当选择的患者中)优于单纯IV tPA。这些结果支持除IV tPA外,将血管内治疗确立为继发于LVO的AIS的标准治疗方法。