Hebant B, Triquenot-Bagan A, Guegan-Massardier E, Ozkul-Wermester O, Grangeon L, Maltête D
Department of Neurology, Rouen University Hospital, 1 Rue de Germont, 76000 Rouen, France.
Department of Neurology, Rouen University Hospital, 1 Rue de Germont, 76000 Rouen, France; INSERM U1073, Rouen Faculty of Medicine, 22 Boulevard Gambetta, 76000 Rouen, France.
Rev Neurol (Paris). 2017 Mar;173(3):152-158. doi: 10.1016/j.neurol.2017.02.003. Epub 2017 Mar 15.
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: The benefits of thrombolysis in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke (IS) are highly time-dependent. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical benefit, after 3 months, of an intrahospital mobile thrombolysis team (MTT) for thrombolysis in IS.
A total of 95 consecutive patients treated with IV tPA for acute IS at the neurology department of Rouen University Hospital between 1 January and 31 December 2015 were retrospectively identified. Patients who had benefited from mechanical thrombectomy or hemicraniectomy were excluded. The study compared 33 patients who had benefited from our MTT (thrombolysis whatever the location and as soon as possible by a specific nurse) with 62 patients treated in the usual way (thrombolysis only at the stroke unit). Management timescales, inhospital and 3-month clinical outcomes, and imaging data were also compared between the two groups.
Demographic data and factors known to influence the clinical course after thrombolysis were similar between the two groups (P>0.05). However, use of the MTT allowed significant decreases in the median onset-to-treatment (OTT) time of 26min and median door-to-needle (DTN) time of 27min (P<0.001). The proportion of patients with a DTN time<60min was higher in the MTT group than in the usual care (UC) group: 64% vs. 14%, respectively (P<0.001), according to American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines. Although there was a smaller proportion of negative 3-month outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score: 6; 6% vs. 16%) and a larger proportion of highly favorable 3-month outcomes (mRS score: 0-1; 79% vs. 64%) in the MTT vs. UC groups, respectively, these differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05).
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Use of an MTT is a simple way to reduce thrombolysis delays, and the present results encourage us to improve the system to make it even more effective and available for all patients.
引言/目的:急性缺血性卒中(IS)患者接受溶栓治疗的获益高度依赖时间。我们研究的目的是评估院内移动溶栓团队(MTT)对IS患者进行溶栓治疗3个月后的临床获益。
回顾性确定2015年1月1日至12月31日期间在鲁昂大学医院神经科接受静脉注射组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(IV tPA)治疗急性IS的95例连续患者。排除接受了机械取栓术或颅骨切开减压术的患者。该研究将33例受益于MTT的患者(无论血栓位置,由特定护士尽快进行溶栓)与62例按常规方式治疗的患者(仅在卒中单元进行溶栓)进行比较。还比较了两组之间的治疗时间、住院期间和3个月时的临床结局以及影像学数据。
两组之间的人口统计学数据以及已知影响溶栓后临床病程的因素相似(P>0.05)。然而,使用MTT可使中位发病至治疗(OTT)时间显著缩短26分钟,中位门到针(DTN)时间显著缩短27分钟(P<0.001)。根据美国心脏协会/美国卒中协会指南,MTT组中DTN时间<60分钟的患者比例高于常规护理(UC)组:分别为64%和14%(P<0.001)。尽管MTT组与UC组相比,3个月时不良结局(改良Rankin量表评分:6分)的比例较小(6%对16%),高度良好结局(mRS评分:0 - 1分)的比例较大(79%对64%),但这些差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
讨论/结论:使用MTT是减少溶栓延迟的一种简单方法,目前的结果促使我们改进该系统,使其更有效并能为所有患者所用。