Department of Neurology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Department of Neurosciences, Experimental Neurology, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
J Neurol. 2022 Mar;269(3):1715-1723. doi: 10.1007/s00415-021-10872-4. Epub 2021 Oct 31.
Originally, the efficacy of acute ischemic stroke treatment with thrombolysis or thrombectomy was only proven in narrow time windows of, respectively, 4.5 and 6 h after onset. Introducing imaging-based selection beyond non-contrast enhanced computed tomography has expanded the treatment window, focusing on presumed tissue status rather than solely on time after stroke onset. Different mismatch concepts have been adopted in clinical practice to select patients in the extended and unknown time window based on findings from randomized controlled trials. Since various concepts exist that can identify patients likely to benefit from reperfusion strategies, clinicians may wonder which imaging modality may be preferred in the emergency setting. In this review, we will discuss the different mismatch concepts and their practical implementation for patient selection for thrombolysis or thrombectomy, beyond the conventional time window.
最初,溶栓或取栓治疗急性缺血性脑卒中的疗效仅在发病后 4.5 小时和 6 小时的狭窄时间窗内得到证实。基于影像学的选择方法引入后,治疗时间窗得到扩展,选择方法侧重于组织状态,而不仅仅是发病后时间。不同的不匹配概念已在临床试验中被采用,以根据随机对照试验的结果选择扩展和未知时间窗内的患者。由于存在多种可以识别可能从再灌注策略中受益的患者的概念,临床医生可能会想知道在紧急情况下哪种成像方式可能更优。在这篇综述中,我们将讨论不同的不匹配概念及其在常规时间窗之外的溶栓或取栓治疗患者选择中的实际应用。