Suppr超能文献

单纯血管内血栓切除术与联合静脉溶栓治疗的比较

Endovascular Thrombectomy Alone versus Combined with Intravenous Thrombolysis.

作者信息

Phan Kevin, Dmytriw Adam A, Maingard Julian, Asadi Hamed, Griessenauer Christoph J, Ng Wyatt, Kewagamang Kitso, Mobbs Ralph J, Moore Justin M, Ogilvy Christopher S, Thomas Ajith J

机构信息

NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group, Sydney, Australia.

Division of Neurosurgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

World Neurosurg. 2017 Dec;108:850-858.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.08.040. Epub 2017 Aug 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To date, no randomized trial has directly addressed the question of whether intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) improves outcomes in IV tPA-eligible patients who will eventually undergo endovascular therapy (EVT), or whether a direct EVT strategy is equally effective. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of direct EVT versus endovascular treatment with IV tPA (EVT+IV tPA) in adults with acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

We performed electronic searches of 6 databases from their inception to January 2017. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints.

RESULTS

Twelve comparative studies, comprising 1275 patients in the EVT-only arm and 1340 patients in the combined EVT+IV tPA arm, were included. The rates of good functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score ≤2) and 90-day mortality were not statistically significantly different between the EVT and EVT+IV tPA arms (44% vs. 48%; odds ratio [OR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-1.002; P = 0.052 and 20.4% vs. 19.4%, OR 1.19; 95% CI, 0.83-1.71; P = 0.34, respectively). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage also was not significantly different between the EVT and EVT+IV tPA arms (3.7% vs. 3.8%; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.65-1.48; P = 0.91). There were no between-group differences in the rates of other complications.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences between the 2 groups were found in terms of favorable functional outcome, mortality rate, or complications based on contemporary endovascular therapies.

摘要

背景

迄今为止,尚无随机试验直接探讨静脉注射组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(tPA)是否能改善最终将接受血管内治疗(EVT)的符合静脉注射tPA条件的患者的预后,或者直接EVT策略是否同样有效。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较直接EVT与静脉注射tPA的血管内治疗(EVT + IV tPA)在急性缺血性脑卒中成人患者中的疗效和安全性。

方法

我们对6个数据库从创建至2017年1月进行了电子检索。根据预定义的临床终点提取并分析数据。

结果

纳入了12项比较研究,其中单纯EVT组有1275例患者,EVT + IV tPA联合组有1340例患者。EVT组和EVT + IV tPA组之间的良好功能预后(改良Rankin量表评分≤2)率和90天死亡率无统计学显著差异(44%对48%;优势比[OR],0.80;95%置信区间[CI],0.64 - 1.002;P = 0.052)以及(20.4%对19.4%,OR 1.19;95% CI,0.83 - 1.71;P = 0.34)。症状性颅内出血率在EVT组和EVT + IV tPA组之间也无显著差异(3.7%对3.8%;OR,0.98;95% CI,0.65 - 1.48;P = 0.91)。其他并发症发生率在组间无差异。

结论

基于当代血管内治疗,两组在良好功能预后、死亡率或并发症方面未发现显著差异。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验