Chen Zhao-Ji, Li Xiao-Fang, Liang Cheng-Yu, Cui Lei, Yang Li-Qing, Xia Yan-Min, Cao Wei, Gao Bu-Lang
The Third ward of Neurology Department, Affiliated Hospital of Hebei University, Baoding, China.
Front Neurol. 2021 Apr 30;12:602370. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.602370. eCollection 2021.
Whether bridging treatment combining intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is superior to direct EVT alone for emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation is unknown. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to investigate and assess the effect and safety of bridging treatment . direct EVT in patients with LVO in the anterior circulation. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched to assess the effect and safety of bridging treatment and direct EVT in LVO. Functional independence, mortality, asymptomatic and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aICH and sICH, respectively), and successful recanalization were evaluated. The risk ratio and the 95% CI were analyzed. Among the eight studies included, there was no significant difference in the long-term functional independence (OR = 1.008, 95% CI = 0.845-1.204, = 0.926), mortality (OR = 1.060, 95% CI = 0.840-1.336, = 0.624), recanalization rate (OR = 1.015, 95% CI = 0.793-1.300, = 0.905), and the incidence of sICH (OR = 1.320, 95% CI = 0.931-1.870, = 0.119) between bridging therapy and direct EVT. After adjusting for confounding factors, bridging therapy showed a lower recanalization rate (effect size or ES = -0.377, 95% CI = -0.684 to -0.070, = 0.016), but there was no significant difference in the long-term functional independence (ES = 0.057, 95% CI = -0.177 to 0.291, = 0.634), mortality (ES = 0.693, 95% CI = -0.133 to 1.519, = 0.100), and incidence of sICH (ES = -0.051, 95% CI = -0.687 to 0.585, = 0.875) compared with direct EVT. Meanwhile, in the subgroup analysis of RCT, no significant difference was found in the long-term functional independence (OR = 0.927, 95% CI = 0.727-1.182, = 0.539), recanalization rate (OR = 1.331, 95% CI = 0.948-1.867, = 0.099), mortality (OR = 1.072, 95% CI = 0.776-1.481, = 0.673), and sICH incidence (OR = 1.383, 95% CI = 0.806-2.374, = 0.977) between patients receiving bridging therapy and those receiving direct DVT. For stroke patients with acute anterior circulation occlusion and who are eligible for intravenous thrombolysis, there is no significant difference in the clinical effect between direct EVT and bridging therapy, which needs to be verified by more randomized controlled trials.
对于前循环急性大血管闭塞(LVO)患者,静脉溶栓(IVT)联合血管内血栓切除术(EVT)的桥接治疗是否优于单纯直接EVT尚不清楚。进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以研究和评估桥接治疗与直接EVT在前循环LVO患者中的疗效和安全性。检索了PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆,以评估桥接治疗和直接EVT在LVO中的疗效和安全性。评估了功能独立性、死亡率、无症状和有症状颅内出血(分别为aICH和sICH)以及成功再通情况。分析了风险比和95%可信区间。在纳入的八项研究中,桥接治疗与直接EVT在长期功能独立性(OR = 1.008,95%CI = 0.845 - 1.204,P = 0.926)、死亡率(OR = 1.060,95%CI = 0.840 - 1.336,P = 0.624)、再通率(OR = 1.015,95%CI = 0.793 - 1.300,P = 0.905)和sICH发生率(OR = 1.320,95%CI = 0.931 - 1.870,P = 0.119)方面无显著差异。在调整混杂因素后,桥接治疗的再通率较低(效应量或ES = -0.377,95%CI = -0.684至-0.070,P = 0.016),但与直接EVT相比,在长期功能独立性(ES = 0.057,95%CI = -0.177至0.291,P = 0.634)、死亡率(ES = 0.693,95%CI = -0.133至1.519,P = 0.100)和sICH发生率(ES = -0.051,CI = -0.687至0.585,P = 0.875)方面无显著差异。同时,在随机对照试验的亚组分析中,接受桥接治疗的患者与接受直接EVT的患者在长期功能独立性(OR = 0.927,95%CI = 0.727 - 1.182,P = 0.539)、再通率(OR = 1.331,95%CI = 0.948 - 1.867,P = 0.099)、死亡率(OR = 1.072,95%CI = 0.776 - 1.481,P = 0.673)和sICH发生率(OR = 1.383,95%CI = 0.806 - 2.374,P = 0.977)方面无显著差异。对于符合静脉溶栓条件的急性前循环闭塞性卒中患者,直接EVT与桥接治疗的临床效果无显著差异,这需要更多随机对照试验来验证。