Diprose William K, Wang Michael T M, Ghate Kaustubha, Brew Stefan, Caldwell James R, McGuinness Ben, Barber P Alan
From the Department of Neurology (W.K.D., K.G.), Auckland City Hospital; Department of Medicine (M.T.M.W., P.A.B.), University of Auckland; and Department of Radiology (S.B., J.R.C., B.M.), Auckland City Hospital, New Zealand.
Neurology. 2021 Jun 14;96(24):1135-1143. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012112.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) as an adjunct to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in ischemic stroke, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
Searches were performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies that compared EVT with EVT with adjunctive IAT (EVT + IAT). Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and mortality at 3 months. Efficacy outcomes included successful reperfusion (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b-3) and functional independence, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 3 months.
Five studies were identified that compared combined EVT + IAT (IA alteplase or urokinase) with EVT only and were included in the random-effects meta-analysis. There were 1693 EVT patients, including 269 patients treated with combined EVT + IAT and 1,424 patients receiving EVT only. Pooled analysis did not demonstrate any differences between EVT + IAT and EVT only in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (odds ratio [OR]: 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-1.85; = 0.78), mortality (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.54-1.10; = 0.15), or successful reperfusion (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.52-2.15; = 0.89). There was a higher rate of functional independence in patients treated with EVT + IAT, although this was not statistically significant (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.00-1.80; = 0.053).
Adjunctive IAT appears to be safe. In specific situations, neurointerventionists may be justified in administering small doses of intra-arterial alteplase or urokinase as rescue therapy during EVT.
为评估动脉内溶栓(IAT)作为缺血性卒中血管内血栓切除术(EVT)辅助治疗的安全性和有效性,我们对相关文献进行了系统综述和荟萃分析。
利用MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane数据库检索比较EVT与辅助IAT的EVT(EVT + IAT)的研究。安全性结局包括症状性脑出血和3个月时的死亡率。有效性结局包括成功再灌注(脑梗死溶栓评分2b - 3)和功能独立性,定义为3个月时改良Rankin量表评分为0 - 2。
确定了5项比较联合EVT + IAT(动脉内阿替普酶或尿激酶)与单纯EVT的研究,并纳入随机效应荟萃分析。有1693例EVT患者,其中269例接受联合EVT + IAT治疗,1424例仅接受EVT治疗。汇总分析未显示EVT + IAT与单纯EVT在症状性脑出血发生率(优势比[OR]:0.61,95%置信区间[CI]:0.20 - 1.85;P = 0.78)、死亡率(OR:0.77,95% CI:0.54 - 1.10;P = 0.15)或成功再灌注率(OR:1.05,95% CI:0.52 - 2.15;P = 0.89)方面存在差异。接受EVT + IAT治疗的患者功能独立性率较高,尽管无统计学意义(OR:1.34,95% CI:1.00 - 1.80;P = 0.053)。
辅助IAT似乎是安全的。在特定情况下,神经介入医生在EVT期间给予小剂量动脉内阿替普酶或尿激酶作为挽救治疗可能是合理的。