Prats-Sanchez Luis, Martínez-Domeño Alejandro, Camps-Renom Pol, Delgado-Mederos Raquel, Guisado-Alonso Daniel, Marín Rebeca, Dorado Laura, Rudilosso Salvatore, Gómez-González Alejandra, Purroy Francisco, Gómez-Choco Manuel, Cánovas David, Cocho Dolores, Garces Moises, Abilleira Sonia, Martí-Fàbregas Joan
Servei de neuorlogia, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Biomedical Research Institute, IIB-Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain.
Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain.
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 22;12(6):e0178284. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178284. eCollection 2017.
Remote parenchymal haemorrhage (rPH) after intravenous thrombolysis is defined as hemorrhages that appear in brain regions without visible ischemic damage, remote from the area of ischemia causing the initial stroke symptom. The pathophysiology of rPH is not clear and may be explained by different underlying mechanisms. We hypothesized that rPH may have different risk factors according to the bleeding location. We report the variables that we found associated with deep and lobar rPH after intravenous thrombolysis.
This is a descriptive study of patients with ischemic stroke who were treated with intravenous thrombolysis. These patients were included in a multicenter prospective registry. We collected demographic, clinical and radiological data. We evaluated the number and distribution of cerebral microbleeds (CMB) from Magnetic Resonance Imaging. We excluded patients treated endovascularly, patients with parenchymal hemorrhage without concomitant rPH and stroke mimics. We compared the variables from patients with deep or lobar rPH with those with no intracranial hemorrhage.
We studied 934 patients (mean age 73.9±12.6 years) and 52.8% were men. We observed rPH in 34 patients (3.6%); 9 (0.9%) were deep and 25 (2.7%) lobar. No hemorrhage was observed in 900 (96.6%) patients. Deep rPH were associated with hypertensive episodes within first 24 hours after intravenous thrombolysis (77.7% vs 23.3%, p<0.001). Lobar rPH were associated with the presence of CMB (53.8% vs 7.9%, p<0.001), multiple (>1) CMB (30.7% vs 4.4%, p = 0.003), lobar CMB (53.8% vs 3.0%, p<0.001) and severe leukoaraiosis (76.9% vs 42%, p = 0.02).
A high blood pressure within the first 24 hours after intravenous thrombolysis is associated with deep rPH, whereas lobar rPH are associated with imaging markers of amyloid deposition. Thus, our results suggest that deep and lobar rPH after intravenous thrombolysis may have different mechanisms.
静脉溶栓后远隔实质出血(rPH)定义为出现在无可见缺血性损伤的脑区、远离导致初始卒中症状的缺血区域的出血。rPH的病理生理学尚不清楚,可能由不同的潜在机制解释。我们推测rPH根据出血部位可能有不同的危险因素。我们报告了静脉溶栓后发现的与深部和脑叶rPH相关的变量。
这是一项对接受静脉溶栓治疗的缺血性卒中患者的描述性研究。这些患者被纳入一个多中心前瞻性登记研究。我们收集了人口统计学、临床和影像学数据。我们通过磁共振成像评估脑微出血(CMB)的数量和分布。我们排除了接受血管内治疗的患者、伴有rPH的实质出血患者和类卒中患者。我们比较了深部或脑叶rPH患者与无颅内出血患者的变量。
我们研究了934例患者(平均年龄73.9±12.6岁),52.8%为男性。我们观察到34例患者(3.6%)发生rPH;9例(0.9%)为深部出血,25例(2.7%)为脑叶出血。900例(96.6%)患者未观察到出血。深部rPH与静脉溶栓后最初24小时内的高血压发作相关(77.7%对23.3%,p<0.0