Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Evidence-based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Aug;10(8):721-728. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013707. Epub 2018 Mar 9.
Optimal technical approaches of large-vessel anterior circulation acute ischemic strokes with concomitant extracranial internal carotid artery tandem occlusions is controversial.
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates: the overall outcomes of patients with tandem occlusions treated with second-generation mechanical thrombectomy devices; differences in outcomes of extracranial versus intracranial first approaches; and differences in outcomes of extracranial stenting at time of procedure versus angioplasty alone.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Web of Science was searched through September 2017 for studies evaluating patients presenting with acute tandem occlusions of the extracranial ICA and intracranial ICA, and/or proximal MCA treated with second-generation mechanical thrombectomy devices. Outcomes were pooled across studies using the random-effects model and expressed as cumulative incidence (event rate) and 95% CI.
Thirty-three studies were included in analysis. Overall mRS≤0-2 at 90 days was 47% (95% CI 42% to 51%). No statistical difference was seen in 90-day mRS≤0-2 for patients treated with extracranial versus intracranial first approaches, 53% (95% CI 44% to 61%) vs 49% (95% CI 44% to 57%) (P=0.58). No statistical difference was seen in 90-day mRS≤0-2 for patients treated with extracranial stenting versus angioplasty alone, 49% (95% CI 42% to 56%) vs 49% (95% CI 33% to 65%) (P=0.39). No other statistical differences in outcome or safety were identified.
Nearly half of all tandem occlusion patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy have good neurological outcomes. No statistical differences in outcome are identified between extracranial first versus intracranial first approaches, nor extracranial stenting versus angioplasty alone.
伴有颅外颈内动脉串联闭塞的大血管前循环急性缺血性脑卒中的最佳技术方法存在争议。
本系统评价和荟萃分析评估了:串联闭塞患者使用第二代机械取栓装置的总体结果;颅外与颅内初次方法治疗的结果差异;以及在介入治疗时行颅外支架置入与单纯血管成形术的结果差异。
通过 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Web of Science 检索评估了颅外颈内动脉和颅内颈内动脉及/或近端 MCA 急性串联闭塞且接受第二代机械取栓装置治疗的患者的研究,检索时间截至 2017 年 9 月。使用随机效应模型汇总研究结果,以累积发生率(事件发生率)和 95%CI 表示。
33 项研究纳入分析。90 天 mRS≤0-2 的总体比例为 47%(95%CI 42%至 51%)。颅外与颅内初次方法治疗的 90 天 mRS≤0-2 无统计学差异,分别为 53%(95%CI 44%至 61%)和 49%(95%CI 44%至 57%)(P=0.58)。颅外支架置入与单纯血管成形术治疗的 90 天 mRS≤0-2 无统计学差异,分别为 49%(95%CI 42%至 56%)和 49%(95%CI 33%至 65%)(P=0.39)。未发现其他结局或安全性的统计学差异。
近一半接受机械取栓治疗的串联闭塞患者有良好的神经功能结局。颅外初次与颅内初次方法治疗的结局,以及颅外支架置入与单纯血管成形术治疗的结局之间均无统计学差异。