The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Neurology Department, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Health Partners, Sydney, NSW, Australia; The George Institute China at Peking University Health Sciences Centre, Beijing, China.
Department of Neurology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lancet. 2019 Mar 2;393(10174):877-888. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30038-8. Epub 2019 Feb 7.
Systolic blood pressure of more than 185 mm Hg is a contraindication to thrombolytic treatment with intravenous alteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, but the target systolic blood pressure for optimal outcome is uncertain. We assessed intensive blood pressure lowering compared with guideline-recommended blood pressure lowering in patients treated with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke.
We did an international, partial-factorial, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial of thrombolysis-eligible patients (age ≥18 years) with acute ischaemic stroke and systolic blood pressure 150 mm Hg or more, who were screened at 110 sites in 15 countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1, by means of a central, web-based program) within 6 h of stroke onset to receive intensive (target systolic blood pressure 130-140 mm Hg within 1 h) or guideline (target systolic blood pressure <180 mm Hg) blood pressure lowering treatment over 72 h. The primary outcome was functional status at 90 days measured by shift in modified Rankin scale scores, analysed with unadjusted ordinal logistic regression. The key safety outcome was any intracranial haemorrhage. Primary and safety outcome assessments were done in a blinded manner. Analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01422616.
Between March 3, 2012, and April 30, 2018, 2227 patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups. After exclusion of 31 patients because of missing consent or mistaken or duplicate randomisation, 2196 alteplase-eligible patients with acute ischaemic stroke were included: 1081 in the intensive group and 1115 in the guideline group, with 1466 (67·4%) administered a standard dose among the 2175 actually given intravenous alteplase. Median time from stroke onset to randomisation was 3·3 h (IQR 2·6-4·1). Mean systolic blood pressure over 24 h was 144·3 mm Hg (SD 10·2) in the intensive group and 149·8 mm Hg (12·0) in the guideline group (p<0·0001). Primary outcome data were available for 1072 patients in the intensive group and 1108 in the guideline group. Functional status (mRS score distribution) at 90 days did not differ between groups (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·01, 95% CI 0·87-1·17, p=0·8702). Fewer patients in the intensive group (160 [14·8%] of 1081) than in the guideline group (209 [18·7%] of 1115) had any intracranial haemorrhage (OR 0·75, 0·60-0·94, p=0·0137). The number of patients with any serious adverse event did not differ significantly between the intensive group (210 [19·4%] of 1081) and the guideline group (245 [22·0%] of 1115; OR 0·86, 0·70-1·05, p=0·1412). There was no evidence of an interaction of intensive blood pressure lowering with dose (low vs standard) of alteplase with regard to the primary outcome.
Although intensive blood pressure lowering is safe, the observed reduction in intracranial haemorrhage did not lead to improved clinical outcome compared with guideline treatment. These results might not support a major shift towards this treatment being applied in those receiving alteplase for mild-to-moderate acute ischaemic stroke. Further research is required to define the underlying mechanisms of benefit and harm resulting from early intensive blood pressure lowering in this patient group.
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; UK Stroke Association; Ministry of Health and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development of Brazil; Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs of South Korea; Takeda.
收缩压超过 185mmHg 是急性缺血性脑卒中患者静脉内使用阿替普酶溶栓治疗的禁忌证,但最佳结局的目标收缩压尚不确定。我们评估了强化降压与急性缺血性脑卒中患者接受阿替普酶治疗时指南推荐的降压相比的效果。
我们在 15 个国家的 110 个地点进行了一项国际、部分因子、开放标签、盲终点试验,纳入了收缩压为 150mmHg 或以上且适合溶栓的急性缺血性脑卒中患者(年龄≥18 岁)。在发病后 6 小时内,通过中央、基于网络的程序将符合条件的患者随机分配(1:1),接受强化(1 小时内目标收缩压为 130-140mmHg)或指南(目标收缩压<180mmHg)降压治疗,持续 72 小时。主要结局是通过改良 Rankin 量表评分的变化来衡量的功能状态,采用未调整的有序逻辑回归进行分析。关键安全性结局是任何颅内出血。主要和安全性结局评估采用盲法。分析采用意向治疗原则。这项试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,编号为 NCT01422616。
2012 年 3 月 3 日至 2018 年 4 月 30 日,共有 2227 例患者被随机分配到治疗组。排除 31 例因未签署同意书或错误或重复随机分组的患者后,共有 2196 例急性缺血性脑卒中患者符合阿替普酶治疗条件,其中 1081 例接受强化降压治疗,1115 例接受指南降压治疗,2175 例实际给予静脉内阿替普酶治疗的患者中有 1466 例给予标准剂量。从发病到随机分组的中位时间为 3.3 小时(IQR 2.6-4.1)。24 小时内平均收缩压在强化组为 144.3mmHg(SD 10.2),在指南组为 149.8mmHg(12.0)(p<0.0001)。强化组和指南组的主要结局数据分别有 1072 例和 1108 例。90 天时的功能状态(mRS 评分分布)在两组之间没有差异(未调整的比值比[OR]1.01,95%CI 0.87-1.17,p=0.8702)。强化组(160 [14.8%]例)颅内出血的患者少于指南组(209 [18.7%]例)(OR 0.75,0.60-0.94,p=0.0137)。强化组(210 [19.4%]例)和指南组(245 [22.0%]例)严重不良事件的患者数量没有显著差异(OR 0.86,0.70-1.05,p=0.1412)。没有证据表明强化降压与阿替普酶的剂量(低剂量与标准剂量)之间存在交互作用。
虽然强化降压是安全的,但观察到的颅内出血减少并没有导致临床结局的改善,与指南治疗相比。这些结果可能不支持在接受阿替普酶治疗轻度至中度急性缺血性脑卒中的患者中广泛采用这种治疗方法。需要进一步研究以确定这种治疗方法在该患者群体中产生获益和危害的潜在机制。
澳大利亚国家卫生和医学研究委员会;英国中风协会;巴西卫生部和国家科学技术发展理事会;韩国卫生部、福利和家庭事务部;武田制药。