Maier Ilko L, Behme Daniel, Schnieder Marlena, Tsogkas Ioannis, Schregel Katharina, Kleinknecht Alexander, Wasser Katrin, Bähr Mathias, Knauth Michael, Psychogios Marios, Liman Jan
Department of Neurology, University Medicine Göttingen, Germany.
Department of Neuroradiology, University Medicine Göttingen, Germany.
J Neurol Sci. 2017 Jan 15;372:300-304. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2016.12.001. Epub 2016 Dec 5.
Although endovascular treatment for proximal cerebral vessel occlusion is very effective, it remains controversial if intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) prior to endovascular treatment is superior compared to endovascular treatment alone. In this study we compared functional outcomes and recanalization rates of endovascularly treated stroke patients with and without bridging IVT.
Patients with acute large artery occlusion within the anterior and posterior cerebral circulation eligible for intraarterial revascularization with and without prior IVT were included in this monocentric, prospective observational study. Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) were determined at baseline, discharge and 90-days follow up after stroke. Successful reperfusion was defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale 2b-3.
Of the 109 patients included, 81 (74%) received bridging therapy with i.v.-rtPA prior to endovascular treatment, 28 (26%) received endovascular treatment alone. There was no difference in groin-to-reperfusion time between the groups (54 vs 50min; p=0.657), but a trend towards a higher reperfusion rate in patients with bridging therapy (69 vs 15 patients, p=0.099). Mean improvement of the NIHSS during hospitalization was 8 points (SD; ±8) in the bridging-group and 2 points (SD, ±7) in the non-bridging-group (p=0.001). Number of patients with discharge mRS 0-2 (34 vs 5; p=0.024) and 90-days mRS 0-2 (35 vs 6; p=0.061) was higher in the bridging-group compared to the non-bridging-group.
This study provides evidence that bridging therapy with i.v.-rtPA improves functional outcome in patients eligible for endovascular treatment. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and to identify patients most likely benefitting from bridging therapy.
尽管血管内治疗近端脑血管闭塞非常有效,但血管内治疗前静脉溶栓(IVT)是否优于单纯血管内治疗仍存在争议。在本研究中,我们比较了接受和未接受桥接IVT的血管内治疗中风患者的功能结局和再通率。
本单中心前瞻性观察性研究纳入了大脑前循环和后循环内急性大动脉闭塞且适合动脉内血运重建的患者,这些患者接受或未接受过IVT。在基线、出院时以及中风后90天随访时测定改良Rankin量表(mRS)和美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)。成功再灌注定义为脑梗死溶栓(TICI)量表2b-3级。
在纳入的109例患者中,81例(74%)在血管内治疗前接受了静脉注射重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(i.v.-rtPA)桥接治疗,28例(26%)仅接受了血管内治疗。两组之间从腹股沟穿刺到再灌注的时间没有差异(54分钟对50分钟;p=0.657),但桥接治疗患者的再通率有升高趋势(69例对15例,p=0.099)。住院期间,桥接组NIHSS的平均改善为8分(标准差;±8),非桥接组为2分(标准差,±7)(p=0.001)。与非桥接组相比,桥接组出院时mRS为0-2的患者数量(34例对5例;p=0.024)以及90天时mRS为0-2 的患者数量(35例对6例;p=0.061)更多。
本研究提供了证据表明,使用i.v.-rtPA进行桥接治疗可改善适合血管内治疗患者的功能结局。需要进一步研究来证实我们的发现,并确定最可能从桥接治疗中获益的患者。