Bridging Therapy and Direct Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Cohort Study

T. Q. Nguyen, A. L. T. Truong, H. Phan, D. Nguyen, K. Nguyen, Huong Nguyen, A. Nguyen, Dinh Chau Bao Hoang, Vu Thanh Tran, T. Q. Nguyen, Tracey Le, K. Nguyen, T. H. Nguyen
{"title":"Bridging Therapy and Direct Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Cohort Study","authors":"T. Q. Nguyen, A. L. T. Truong, H. Phan, D. Nguyen, K. Nguyen, Huong Nguyen, A. Nguyen, Dinh Chau Bao Hoang, Vu Thanh Tran, T. Q. Nguyen, Tracey Le, K. Nguyen, T. H. Nguyen","doi":"10.1177/2516608520976275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: It remains controversial if intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) prior to mechanical thrombectomy (MTE) is superior to MTE alone in patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusion. We aim to compare functional outcomes, mortality, reperfusion, and intracranial hemorrhage rates in bridging therapy (IVT prior thrombectomy) and MTE alone groups within 6 h from symptom onset. Materials and Methods: Consecutive hospitalized patients (September 2017 and July 2018) with acute large artery occlusion within the anterior cerebral circulation eligible for MTE with or without prior IVT were included. A modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 was considered as good functional outcome at 90 days. Successful reperfusion was defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale of 2b to 3. Results: Of the 124 patients included, 56 (45.2%) received bridging therapy and 68 (54.8%) received MTE alone. Patients receiving bridging therapy were younger (median, 56 vs 63, P = .045) and had shorter onset-to-groin time (median, 270 vs 370 min, P < .001) than those receiving MTE alone. Successful reperfusion rate was significantly greater in the bridging therapy group (87.5% vs 72.1%, P = 0.03). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in functional independence (bridging 58.9% vs 75.0%, P = 0.07), mortality at 90 days (bridging 14.3% vs 7.4%, P = 0.22), parenchymal hematoma type 2 (bridging 3.6% vs 2.9%, P > .99), and any hemorrhage (bridging 42.3% vs 26.5%, P = 0.07). Conclusion: Compared to MTE alone, bridging therapy with IVT improved the reperfusion rate but not other outcomes. Further clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings.","PeriodicalId":93323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of stroke medicine","volume":"63 1","pages":"124 - 130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of stroke medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2516608520976275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: It remains controversial if intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) prior to mechanical thrombectomy (MTE) is superior to MTE alone in patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusion. We aim to compare functional outcomes, mortality, reperfusion, and intracranial hemorrhage rates in bridging therapy (IVT prior thrombectomy) and MTE alone groups within 6 h from symptom onset. Materials and Methods: Consecutive hospitalized patients (September 2017 and July 2018) with acute large artery occlusion within the anterior cerebral circulation eligible for MTE with or without prior IVT were included. A modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 was considered as good functional outcome at 90 days. Successful reperfusion was defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale of 2b to 3. Results: Of the 124 patients included, 56 (45.2%) received bridging therapy and 68 (54.8%) received MTE alone. Patients receiving bridging therapy were younger (median, 56 vs 63, P = .045) and had shorter onset-to-groin time (median, 270 vs 370 min, P < .001) than those receiving MTE alone. Successful reperfusion rate was significantly greater in the bridging therapy group (87.5% vs 72.1%, P = 0.03). There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in functional independence (bridging 58.9% vs 75.0%, P = 0.07), mortality at 90 days (bridging 14.3% vs 7.4%, P = 0.22), parenchymal hematoma type 2 (bridging 3.6% vs 2.9%, P > .99), and any hemorrhage (bridging 42.3% vs 26.5%, P = 0.07). Conclusion: Compared to MTE alone, bridging therapy with IVT improved the reperfusion rate but not other outcomes. Further clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急性缺血性脑卒中的桥接治疗和直接取栓:一项前瞻性队列研究
背景:对于大血管闭塞引起的急性缺血性卒中患者,在机械取栓(MTE)前静脉溶栓(IVT)是否优于单纯机械取栓(MTE)仍存在争议。我们的目标是在症状出现后6小时内比较桥接治疗组(IVT前取栓)和单独MTE组的功能结局、死亡率、再灌注和颅内出血率。材料与方法:纳入2017年9月至2018年7月连续住院的脑前循环急性大动脉闭塞患者,合并或不合并IVT,符合MTE治疗条件。修改后的Rankin量表评分0到2分被认为是90天的良好功能结局。再灌注成功定义为脑梗死溶栓评分2b ~ 3。结果:124例患者中,56例(45.2%)接受桥接治疗,68例(54.8%)单独接受MTE治疗。接受桥接治疗的患者更年轻(中位数,56 vs 63, P = 0.045),与单独接受MTE治疗的患者相比,从发病到腹股沟的时间更短(中位数,270 vs 370分钟,P < 0.001)。桥接治疗组再灌注成功率显著高于桥接治疗组(87.5% vs 72.1%, P = 0.03)。两组患者在功能独立性(桥接58.9% vs 75.0%, P = 0.07)、90天死亡率(桥接14.3% vs 7.4%, P = 0.22)、2型实质血肿(桥接3.6% vs 2.9%, P > 0.99)和任何出血(桥接42.3% vs 26.5%, P = 0.07)方面均无统计学差异。结论:与单纯MTE治疗相比,桥接与IVT治疗提高了再灌注率,但没有改善其他结果。需要进一步的临床试验来证实我们的发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Study of the Correlation of Pulsatility Index by Transcranial Doppler in the Clinical Outcome of Patients with Cerebral Venous Sinus 
Thrombosis Acute Ischaemic Stroke in a Young Adult in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Case Report of Post-strangulation Carotid Artery Dissection The Effect of Biological Sex on a County Pre-hospital Stroke Initiative COVID and Vaccine-related Cerebral Venous Thrombosis Expert Consensus on Improving Stroke Care Ecosystem in India
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1