Suppr超能文献

直接入院与继发性转院治疗接受血栓切除术的急性缺血性脑卒中患者:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Direct admission versus secondary transfer for acute ischemic stroke patients treated with thrombectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, The First Clinic College of Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, 453000, Henan, China.

Department of Neurosurgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Xinxiang, 453000, Henan, China.

出版信息

J Neurol. 2021 Oct;268(10):3601-3609. doi: 10.1007/s00415-020-09877-2. Epub 2020 Jun 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that mechanical thrombectomy (MT) could provide more benefit than standard medical care for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients due to emergent large vessel occlusion. However, most primary stroke centers (PSCs) are unable to perform MT, and MT can only be performed in comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) with on-site interventional neuroradiologic services. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate regarding whether patients with suspected AIS should be directly admitted to CSCs or secondarily transferred to CSCs from PSCs. This meta-analysis was aimed to investigate the two transportation paradigms of direct admission and secondary transfer, which one could provide more benefit for AIS patients treated with MT.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis through searching PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library database up to March 2020. Primary outcomes are as follows: symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) within 7 days; favorable functional outcome at 3 months; mortality in hospital; mortality at 3 months; and successful recanalization rate.

RESULTS

Our pooled results showed that patients directly admitted to CSCs had higher chances of achieving a favorable functional outcome at 3 months than those secondarily transferred to CSCs (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12-1.42; P < 0.001). In addition, no significant difference was found between the two transportation paradigms in the rate of sICH (OR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62-1.18; P = 0.35), mortality in hospital (OR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.51-1.39; P = 0.51), mortality at 3 months (OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.21; P = 0.91), and successful recanalization (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P = 0.74). However, in the 100% bridging thrombolysis usage rate subgroup, our subgroup analysis indicated that no difference was found in any outcome between the two transportation paradigms.

CONCLUSION

Patients with AIS directly admitted to CSCs for MT may be a feasible transportation paradigm for AIS patients. However, more large-scale randomized prospective trials are required to further investigate this issue.

摘要

背景与目的

随机对照试验已经证明,对于由于紧急大血管闭塞导致的急性缺血性脑卒中(AIS)患者,机械取栓(MT)比标准医疗护理能带来更多的益处。然而,大多数初级卒中中心(PSC)无法进行 MT,只有具备现场介入神经放射服务的综合卒中中心(CSC)才能进行 MT。因此,目前仍在争论是否应将疑似 AIS 患者直接收入 CSC,还是应将其从 PSC 二次转至 CSC。本荟萃分析旨在研究直接入院和二次转院这两种转运模式,哪种模式对接受 MT 治疗的 AIS 患者更有益。

方法

我们通过检索 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库,对截至 2020 年 3 月的文献进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。主要结局如下:7 天内症状性颅内出血(sICH);3 个月时的良好功能结局;住院死亡率;3 个月死亡率;以及再通率。

结果

我们的汇总结果表明,与二次转院至 CSC 的患者相比,直接收入 CSC 的患者在 3 个月时获得良好功能结局的可能性更高(OR=1.26;95%CI,1.12-1.42;P<0.001)。此外,两种转运模式在 sICH 发生率(OR=0.86;95%CI,0.62-1.18;P=0.35)、住院死亡率(OR=0.84;95%CI,0.51-1.39;P=0.51)、3 个月死亡率(OR=1.01;95%CI,0.85-1.21;P=0.91)和再通率(OR=1.03;95%CI,0.88-1.20;P=0.74)方面均无显著差异。然而,在 100%桥接溶栓使用率亚组中,我们的亚组分析表明,两种转运模式在任何结局方面均无差异。

结论

对于需要 MT 的 AIS 患者,直接收入 CSC 可能是一种可行的转运模式。然而,需要更多大规模的随机前瞻性试验来进一步研究这个问题。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验