Lindsberg Perttu J, Sairanen Tiina, Nagel Simon, Salonen Oili, Silvennoinen Heli, Strbian Daniel
Clinical Neurosciences, Neurology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Molecular Neurology, Research Programs Unit, Biomedicum Helsinki, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Eur Stroke J. 2016 Mar;1(1):41-50. doi: 10.1177/2396987316629889. Epub 2016 Mar 1.
Basilar artery occlusion is a most devastating form of stroke, and the current practice is to reverse it with revascularization therapies. Pharmacological thrombolysis, intravenous or intraarterial, has been adjuncted or replaced with invasive, endovascular thrombectomy procedures. The preferred approach remains unknown and many recanalizations are futile with no clinical benefit. We sought to determine reasons for futility and weigh the existing reports to find whether endovascular mechanical interventions provide superior outcomes over pharmacological thrombolysis alone.
After analyzing systematically the reports of outcomes produced by variable basilar artery occlusion recanalization protocols, information was retrieved and reconciled from 15 reports published from year 2005 comprising 803 patients in 17 cohorts. In the largest single-center cohort (162, Helsinki), predictors of futile recanalization (three-month modified Rankin Scale score 4 to 6) were determined.
Good outcome was reported by mechanical approaches either alone or on demand more frequently than by pharmacological, intravenous or intraarterial thrombolysis protocols (35.5% versus 24.4%, p < 0.001), accompanied by higher recanalization rates (84.1% versus 70.9%, p < 0.001). Along with superior recanalization rate at 91%, good outcome was reached by primary thrombectomy in 36% at the cost of substantial futile recanalization rate at 60%, which was lower when using modern stentrievers only (52.8%). In the Helsinki cohort, the single most significant predictor was extensive baseline ischemia, increasing the odds of futility 20-fold (95%CI 4.39-92.29, p < 0.001). Other attributes of futility were ventilation support and history of atrial fibrillation or previous stroke.
Endovascular mechanical approaches have been reported to provide superior outcomes over pharmacological thrombolysis in basilar artery occlusion. Stricter patient selection, most notably to exclude victims of already extended ischemia, would assist in translating excellent recanalization rates into improved clinical outcomes and more acceptable futility rates.
基底动脉闭塞是一种极具破坏性的中风形式,目前的治疗方法是通过血管再通疗法来逆转。静脉或动脉内的药物溶栓已作为辅助手段或被侵入性的血管内血栓切除术所取代。首选方法尚不清楚,许多再通治疗是无效的,没有临床益处。我们试图确定无效的原因,并权衡现有报告,以发现血管内机械干预是否比单纯药物溶栓能提供更好的结果。
在系统分析了不同基底动脉闭塞再通方案产生的结果报告后,从2005年发表的15份报告中检索并整理了信息,这些报告包括17个队列中的803名患者。在最大的单中心队列(162例,赫尔辛基)中,确定了无效再通(三个月改良Rankin量表评分4至6)的预测因素。
与药物溶栓、静脉或动脉内溶栓方案相比,单独或按需使用机械方法报告的良好结果更为频繁(35.5%对24.4%,p<0.001),再通率更高(84.1%对70.9%,p<0.001)。随着91%的优异再通率,初次血栓切除术以60%的高无效再通率为代价,使36%的患者获得了良好结果,仅使用现代取栓器时该比例较低(52.8%)。在赫尔辛基队列中,最显著的单一预测因素是广泛的基线缺血,使无效的几率增加20倍(95%CI 4.39 - 92.29, p<0.001)。无效的其他因素是通气支持以及房颤或既往中风史。
据报道,在基底动脉闭塞中,血管内机械方法比药物溶栓能提供更好的结果。更严格的患者选择,尤其是排除已经存在长时间缺血的患者,将有助于把优异的再通率转化为更好的临床结果和更可接受的无效率。