Suppr超能文献

静脉注射阿替普酶溶栓治疗在串联病变且紧急颈动脉支架置入术患者中的价值:SWIFT DIRECT 试验的亚组分析。

Value of intravenous alteplase before thrombectomy among patients with tandem lesions and emergent carotid artery stenting: A subgroup analysis of the SWIFT DIRECT trial.

机构信息

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital Bern Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Department of Neurology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

出版信息

Eur J Neurol. 2024 Jun;31(6):e16256. doi: 10.1111/ene.16256. Epub 2024 Feb 26.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The value of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in eligible tandem lesion patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) is unknown. We investigated treatment effect heterogeneity of EVT + IVT versus EVT-only in tandem lesion patients. Additional analyses were performed for patients undergoing emergent internal carotid artery (ICA) stenting.

METHODS

SWIFT DIRECT randomized IVT-eligible patients to either EVT + IVT or EVT-only. Primary outcome was 90-day functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) after the index event. Secondary endpoints were reperfusion success, 24 h intracranial hemorrhage rate, and 90-day all-cause mortality. Interaction models were fitted for all predefined outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 408 included patients, 63 (15.4%) had a tandem lesion and 33 (52.4%) received IVT. In patients with tandem lesions, 20 had undergone emergent ICA stenting (EVT + IVT: 9/33, 27.3%; EVT: 11/30, 36.7%). Tandem lesion did not show treatment effect modification of IVT on rates of functional independence (tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 63.6% vs. 46.7%, non-tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 65.6% vs. 58.2%; p for interaction = 0.77). IVT also did not increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage  among tandem lesion patients (tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 34.4% vs. 46.7%, non-tandem lesion EVT + IVT vs. EVT: 33.5% vs. 26.3%; p for interaction = 0.15). No heterogeneity was noted for other endpoints (p for interaction > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

No treatment effect heterogeneity of EVT + IVT versus EVT-only was observed among tandem lesion patients. Administering IVT in patients with anticipated emergent ICA stenting seems safe, and the latter should not be a factor to consider when deciding to administer IVT before EVT.

摘要

背景与目的

在接受血管内治疗(EVT)的适合串联病变患者中,静脉溶栓(IVT)的价值尚不清楚。我们研究了 EVT+IVT 与 EVT 仅治疗在串联病变患者中的治疗效果异质性。对接受紧急颈内动脉(ICA)支架置入术的患者进行了额外的分析。

方法

SWIFT DIRECT 将符合 IVT 条件的患者随机分配至 EVT+IVT 或 EVT 仅治疗组。主要终点为指数事件后 90 天的功能独立性(改良 Rankin 量表评分 0-2)。次要终点为再灌注成功、24 小时颅内出血率和 90 天全因死亡率。为所有预先设定的结局拟合了交互模型。

结果

在纳入的 408 例患者中,63 例(15.4%)存在串联病变,33 例(52.4%)接受了 IVT。在存在串联病变的患者中,20 例接受了紧急 ICA 支架置入术(EVT+IVT:9/33,27.3%;EVT:11/30,36.7%)。串联病变并未改变 IVT 对功能独立性的治疗效果(串联病变 EVT+IVT 与 EVT:63.6%与 46.7%,非串联病变 EVT+IVT 与 EVT:65.6%与 58.2%;p 交互 = 0.77)。IVT 也未增加串联病变患者颅内出血的风险(串联病变 EVT+IVT 与 EVT:34.4%与 46.7%,非串联病变 EVT+IVT 与 EVT:33.5%与 26.3%;p 交互 = 0.15)。其他终点均未观察到异质性(p 交互 > 0.05)。

结论

在串联病变患者中,EVT+IVT 与 EVT 仅治疗之间未观察到治疗效果的异质性。在预计需要紧急 ICA 支架置入术的患者中使用 IVT 似乎是安全的,在决定在 EVT 之前进行 IVT 时,后者不应成为考虑因素。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e099/11235868/2dab90fa679e/ENE-31-e16256-g002.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验