1 Department of Neurology Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands.
2 Public Health Center for Medical Decision Making Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam Rotterdam The Netherlands.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jun 4;8(11):e011592. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.011592. Epub 2019 May 29.
Background It is unclear whether intravenous thrombolysis ( IVT ) with alteplase before endovascular treatment ( EVT ) is beneficial for patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by a large vessel occlusion. We compared clinical and procedural outcomes, safety, and workflow between patients treated with both IVT and EVT and those treated with EVT alone in routine clinical practice. Methods and Results Using multivariable regression, we evaluated the association of IVT + EVT with 90-day functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale), mortality, reperfusion, first-pass effect, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in The Netherlands) Registry. Of 1485 patients, 1161 (78%) were treated with IVT + EVT , and 324 (22%) with EVT alone. Patients treated with IVT + EVT had atrial fibrillation less often (16% versus 44%) and had better pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale scores (pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale 0: 73% versus 52%) than those treated with EVT alone. Procedure time was shorter in the IVT + EVT group (median 62 versus 68 minutes). Nontransferred IVT + EVT patients had longer door-to-groin-puncture times (median 105 versus 94 minutes). IVT + EVT was associated with better functional outcome (adjusted common odds ratio 1.47; 95% CI : 1.10-1.96) and lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.58; 95% CI : 0.40-0.82). Successful reperfusion, first-pass effect, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between groups. Conclusions In this observational study, patients treated with IVT + EVT had better clinical outcomes than patients who received EVT alone. This finding may demonstrate a true benefit of IVT before EVT , but its interpretation is hampered by the possibility of residual confounding and selection bias. Randomized trials are required to properly assess the effect of IVT before EVT .
背景 目前尚不清楚对于由大血管闭塞引起的急性缺血性脑卒中患者,在血管内治疗(EVT)之前使用阿替普酶静脉溶栓(IVT)是否有益。我们比较了在常规临床实践中接受 IVT 和 EVT 联合治疗与仅接受 EVT 治疗的患者的临床和程序结局、安全性和工作流程。
方法和结果 我们使用多变量回归评估了 IVT+EVT 与 90 天功能结局(改良 Rankin 量表)、死亡率、再灌注、初次通过效应和症状性颅内出血在 MR CLEAN(荷兰多中心随机对照急性缺血性脑卒中血管内治疗试验)登记研究中的相关性。在 1485 例患者中,1161 例(78%)接受了 IVT+EVT 治疗,324 例(22%)接受了单独 EVT 治疗。与单独接受 EVT 治疗的患者相比,接受 IVT+EVT 治疗的患者心房颤动发生率较低(16%比 44%),且发病前改良 Rankin 量表评分更好(发病前改良 Rankin 量表 0 分:73%比 52%)。IVT+EVT 组的手术时间更短(中位数 62 分钟比 68 分钟)。未转院的 IVT+EVT 患者的门到股穿刺时间更长(中位数 105 分钟比 94 分钟)。IVT+EVT 与更好的功能结局相关(调整后的常见比值比 1.47;95%CI:1.10-1.96),且死亡率较低(调整后的比值比 0.58;95%CI:0.40-0.82)。两组之间的再灌注成功率、初次通过效应和症状性颅内出血无差异。
结论 在这项观察性研究中,与单独接受 EVT 治疗的患者相比,接受 IVT+EVT 治疗的患者具有更好的临床结局。这一发现可能表明在 EVT 之前使用 IVT 确实有益,但由于可能存在残余混杂和选择偏倚,其解释受到限制。需要进行随机试验来正确评估 EVT 前 IVT 的效果。