日期:2023-01-08 阅读量:0次 所属栏目:其他医学
摘 要:
目的 探究机械取栓治疗合并大血管闭塞的急性轻型缺血性卒中(LVO-MIS)患者的有效性、安全性及影响LVO-MIS患者临床预后的相关因素。方法 回顾性连续纳入徐州医科大学附属淮安医院神经内科2019年5月至2022年1月间行机械取栓辅助标准内科治疗的LVO-MIS患者28例作为取栓组。另选取同期仅行标准内科治疗的LVO-MIS患者48例作为对照组。对比两组患者的人口学资料(年龄、性别)、一般临床资料[既往病史、吸烟、饮酒、基线美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分、基线改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分、是否静脉溶栓及发病至入院时间]、临床预后指标及不良事件(早期神经功能恶化、症状性颅内出血、死亡)。主要结局为术后90 d优异结局(mRS评分0~1分);次要结局包括术后90 d良好结局(mRS评分0~2分)、早期神经功能恶化、血管成功再通[改良脑梗死溶栓(mTICI)分级2b~3级]、症状性颅内出血及死亡。采用单因素分析及多因素Logistic回归模型分析影响LVO-MIS患者治疗结局(良好结局)的独立危险因素。结果 76例患者中,术后90 d预后良好59例(77.6%),预后不良17例(22.4%)。28例取栓组患者均成功开通闭塞血管。两组患者在性别、年龄、吸烟、饮酒、既往病史、静脉溶栓率和发病至入院时间方面,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。与对照组患者比较,取栓组患者的基线NIHSS评分[5.0(4.0,5.0)分比3.0(1.0,4.0)分;Z=-5.095,P<0.01]和基线mRS评分[4.0(4.0,4.0)分比2.0(2.0,4.0)分;Z=-3.908,P<0.01]较高,但术后90 d优异结局率更高,差异具有统计学意义[67.9%(19/28)比43.8%(21/48);χ2=4.122,P=0.042]。两组患者的术后90 d良好结局率、早期神经功能恶化率、症状性颅内出血发生率及病死率等次要结局指标比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,行静脉溶栓(OR=5.820,95%CI:1.012~33.479,P=0.049)和机械取栓治疗(OR=5.318,95%CI:1.073~26.367,P=0.041)与LVO-MIS患者术后90 d良好结局独立相关。结论 对比标准内科治疗,机械取栓治疗LVO-MIS患者是有效和安全的。静脉溶栓和机械取栓治疗可能是LVO-MIS患者良好预后的独立保护因素,但仍然需要大样本研究进一步验证机械取栓治疗在LVO-MIS患者中的可行性。
关键词:缺血性卒中;机械取栓;血管内治疗;大血管闭塞;预后;轻型缺血性卒中;
Abstract:
Objective To explore the efficacy and safety of mechanical thrombectomy in the treatment of acute mild ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion(LVO-MIS) and the related factors affecting the clinical prognosis of LVO-MIS patients. Methods A total of 28 patients with LVO-MIS who received mechanical thrombectomy assisted standard medical treatment in the Department of Neurology, the Affiliated Huai′an Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University from May 2019 to January 2022 were collected as the thrombectomy group. In addition, 48 LVO-MIS patients who only received standard medical treatment in the same period were selected as the control group. Demographic data(gender, age), the general clinical data(medical history, smoking, drinking, the baseline Nnational Institutes of Health stroke scale [NIHSS] score, baseline modified Rankin scale [mRS] score, whether intravenous thrombolysis, onset to admission time), clinical prognostic factors, and adverse events(early neurologic deterioration, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, death) were compared between the two groups. The primary outcome was 90-day excellent outcome(mRS score 0-1); secondary outcomes included 90-day favorable outcome(mRS score 0-2), early neurological deterioration, successful revascularization(modified cerebral infarction thrombolysis [mTICI] grade 2 b-3), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and death. A multivariate Logistic regression model was used to analyze the independent risk factors affecting the treatment outcome of LVO-MIS patients. Results Among 76 patients, 59(77.6%) had a good prognosis 90 days after treatment, and 17(22.4%) had a poor prognosis. All 28 patients in the thrombectomy group received successful recanalization. There was no significant differences in gender, age, smoking, drinking, past medical history, intravenous thrombolysis rate, and time from onset to admission between the two groups(all P>0.05). Compared with the control group, the baseline NIHSS score(5.0[4.0, 5.0] vs. 3.0[1.0, 4.0], Z=-5.095, P<0.01) and baseline mRS score(4.0[4.0, 4.0] vs. 2.0[2.0, 4.0], Z=-3.908, P<0.01) of the thrombectomy group were higher, but the 90-day excellent outcome rate was higher with statistically significant difference(67.9%[19/28] vs. 43.8%[21/48],χ2=4.122, P=0.042). There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes such as the 90-day favorable outcome rate, early neurological deterioration rate, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate, and mortality rate between the two groups(all P>0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that intravenous thrombolysis(OR,5.820, 95% CI 1.012-33.479, P=0.049) and mechanical thrombectomy(OR,5.318, 95% CI 1.073-26.367, P=0.041) were independently associated with clinical outcomes 90-day after treatment in LVO-MIS patients. Conclusions Compared with standard medical treatment, mechanical thrombectomy is effective and safe in treating LVO-MIS patients. Intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy may be independent protective factors for good prognosis 90-day after treatment in LVO-MIS patients. However, large sample studies are still needed to further verify the feasibility of mechanical thrombectomy in LVO-MIS patients.
Keyword:
Ischemic stroke; Mechanical thrombectomy; Endovascular treatment; Large vessel occlusion; Prognosis; Mild ischemic stroke;
多项大型随机对照研究表明,未经治疗的急性缺血性卒中(acute ischemic stroke, AIS)合并大血管闭塞(large vessel occlusion, LVO)与不良的临床预后相关,约有80%的患者在发病90 d内死亡或遗留功能性残疾[1,2]。其中急性轻型缺血性卒中(mild ischemic stroke, MIS)占AIS患者的1/3~2/3[3,4],主要表现为轻度神经功能缺损症状。目前MIS的定义尚不统一,一般以美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分≤5分,或改良Rankin 量表(mRS)评分≤2分作为MIS的诊断标准[5]。部分MIS患者并不能获得一个良好的预后,约有30%的患者可能在发病90 d内遗留持续残疾,而合并大血管闭塞的MIS患者早期出现神经功能恶化的比例更是远高于无大血管闭塞的MIS患者[6],其临床预后更差,死亡风险更高。LVO-MIS患者的急性期治疗主要包括静脉溶栓和常规内科治疗[7]。由于担心颅内出血风险的增高等原因,约有1/3的MIS患者会被排除在静脉溶栓之外[3]。已有研究认为,对早期神经功能恶化(early neurological deterioration, END)风险较高的MIS患者而言,静脉溶栓桥接机械取栓术可能改善患者的临床预后[8,9]。但有研究报道,接受机械取栓治疗患者的中位NIHSS评分为15~17分[10],而对低NIHSS评分的LVO患者而言,急性期机械取栓术治疗的管理尚未明确和规范。因此,本研究采用回顾性研究方法,研究机械取栓治疗LVO-MIS患者的疗效及安全性,并分析可能影响LVO-MIS患者临床预后的相关因素,旨在为机械取栓术应用于LVO-MIS患者的急性期治疗提供参考。
1 对象与方法
1.1 对象
回顾性连续纳入2019年5月到 2022年1月期间在徐州医科大学附属淮安医院神经内科诊疗的合并LVO的急性MIS患者共76例。纳入标准:(1)年龄18~85岁,性别不限;(2)入院NIHSS评分≤5分;(3)所有患者急诊行头部影像学检查明确为急性LVO(包括颈内动脉、大脑中动脉M1或M2 段、大脑前动脉A1段、椎-基底动脉或串联病变);(4)患者自愿加入本研究。排除标准:(1)有活动性出血、出血性脑血管病史或凝血功能异常者;(2)合并严重心、肝、肾等脏器功能不全者;(3)影像学提示颅内出血、颅脑创伤或其他颅内疾病;(4)存在昏迷、癫痫、中枢神经损伤等病史;(5)合并感染性疾病或其他严重炎性疾病;(6)入院前1个月内有重大手术或外伤病史。本研究方案经徐州医科大学附属淮安医院伦理委员会审核批准(伦理审批号:HEYLL 201915),所有患者或家属对本研究知情并签署相关治疗(包括手术)等知情同意书。
1.2 方法
1.2.1 入院评估及分组:
所有患者进入急诊后,均经卒中绿色通道入院,行头部CT平扫检查排除颅内出血,完善CT灌注成像或磁共振扩散加权成像(DWI)及实验室、心电图等入院检查;收集入院资料包括性别、年龄、吸烟[11]、饮酒[12]、既往史[高血压病、糖尿病、高脂血症、心房颤动、冠心病、卒中、短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)]、基线NIHSS评分、基线mRS评分、发病至入院时间等。高血压病定义为平均血压>140/90 mmHg, 或自我报告有高血压病或使用抗高血压药物[13];糖尿病定义为空腹血糖≥7.0 mmol/L,或餐后2 h血糖≥11.1 mmol/L,或随机血糖≥11.1 mmol/L,或自我报告糖尿病或使用糖尿病药物[14];高脂血症诊断标准为连续两次测量血清总胆固醇≥5.72 mmol/L,或三酰甘油≥1.70 mmol/L,或高密度脂蛋白≤0.91 mmol/L,或入院前已诊断为高脂血症或使用降脂药[15];心房颤动定义为常规心电图或24 h动态心电图显示持续性或阵发性心室率绝对不齐,伴P波消失、小而不规则的f波出现,或自我报告有心房颤动病史[16];冠心病、卒中和TIA定义为既往存在症状性卒中或TIA、冠心病事件(根据自我报告或可用的临床数据判断)[17,18]。向患者家属详细解释患者病情、取栓治疗及标准内科治疗方案,并说明手术相关风险。结合患者病情和家属意愿,为患者制定急诊机械取栓辅助标准内科治疗方案(取栓组)或单纯标准内科治疗方案(对照组),患方签署知情同意书,取栓组应同时积极完善导管室准备。
1.2.2 标准内科治疗:
根据《中国急性缺血性脑卒中诊治指南2018》[19]给予患者标准内科治疗方案:(1)未接受静脉溶栓治疗的对照组患者,入科后立即启动阿司匹林和氯吡格雷的双重抗血小板聚集治疗;(2)接受静脉溶栓治疗的对照组患者在溶栓24 h后开始启动双重抗血小板聚集治疗;(3)取栓组患者机械取栓后24 h内使用替罗非班静脉输注,24 h后改用阿司匹林和氯吡格雷的双重抗血小板聚集治疗。
1.2.3 机械取栓治疗:
本中心应用抽吸取栓或支架取栓进行血管内治疗,根据患者个体化情况选择首选方案。所有取栓患者的手术在局部麻醉或全身麻醉下进行。患者取仰卧位,常规消毒、铺巾、麻醉,选择右侧股动脉为穿刺点,采用Seldinger法穿刺,插入8 F动脉鞘管,血管造影明确血管闭塞部位和侧支循环情况。(1) 直接抽吸一次性通过技术(a direct aspiration first pass technique, ADAPT)进行抽吸取栓治疗:选用ReactTM68 (Medtronic, 美国)导管,配合微导丝及微导管送至血栓处。利用50 ml注射器手动进行抽吸,抽吸前保证导管及Y阀各处密闭性良好,注射器抽不出血液时即为抽吸导管与栓子接触。保持负压持续抽吸90 s, 然后继续保持负压抽吸力缓慢回收导管,取出血栓。(2)机械支架取栓治疗:选用SolitaireAB(Medtronic, 美国)支架进行取栓,将中间导管输送至血栓近端。微导丝携带微导管缓慢通过闭塞血管段,而后通过微导管造影明确血栓远端位置及远段血管通畅。将 SolitaireAB支架经微导管送闭塞处定位释放,等待5~8 min, 支架充分捕获血栓,用50 ml注射器连接于8 F指引导管末端Y阀处进行手动抽吸,同时将支架与微导管一并拉入8 F指引导管内,再缓慢拉出体外取栓。
如为大动脉重度狭窄基础上的闭塞或取栓超过3次,可综合考虑后行血管支架成形术。取栓结束后即刻DSA评估血管再通情况,检查血栓形态及性质。
根据《中国急性缺血性脑卒中早期血管内介入诊疗指南2018》[20],取栓患者术后转入神经重症监护病房进行生命体征监测、常规内科治疗及神经内科护理,术后48 h内复查头部CT,密切观察术后不良反应的发生;患者生命体征平稳≥3 d后转入神经内科普通病房继续治疗。
1.3 评估标准
(1)血管再通标准:采用改良脑梗死溶栓(modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction, mTICI)分级评估目标血管血流再通情况。根据指南[20],mTICI 2b~3级定义为血管成功再通。(2)临床疗效评估:采用NIHSS评分[21,22]及mRS评分[23]对患者神经功能缺损情况和生活质量进行评估。术后90 d采用mRS评估患者临床预后结局,90 d mRS评分0~2分为预后良好,3~6分为预后不良,6分代表死亡(用于计算病死率)。(3)安全性指标:主要包括END、全身并发症、症状性颅内出血(symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, sICH)、机械取栓相关不良事件等。END定义为发病48~72 h内NIHSS评分较基线增加≥4分[24,25];全身并发症包括住院期间肺部感染、消化道出血、深静脉血栓、泌尿系统感染等;sICH定义为入院期间NIHSS评分增加≥4分,且治疗后24~36 h或临床症状加重时行头部影像学检查提示颅内出血[26]。机械取栓相关不良事件包括无效再灌注(定义为mTICI≥2b级,但90 d mRS评分>2分[27])、对比剂渗出(定义为术后24~36 h随访头部CT示高密度病灶快速消失且无占位效应[28])、血栓逃逸(定义为术中造影显示先前未受累的脑血管区域或病变血管远端发生血栓栓塞[29])等。
主要结局定义为术后90 d优异结局,即90 d mRS评分0~1分;次要结局包括术后90 d良好结局(90 d mRS评分0~2分)、END、血管成功再通、sICH及死亡。
1.4 影响临床预后的相关因素分析
根据术后90 d mRS评分结果,将76例患者分为预后良好(mRS评分0~2分)组与预后不良(mRS评分3~6分)组,并对两组患者的一般临床资料进行单因素分析和多因素分析,以分析影响术后90 d预后良好的因素。
1.5 统计学分析
根据既往研究试验[30,31]及本中心预探索结果,假设取栓组和对照组的优异预后率达79.7%和48.8%,设双侧检验水准α=0.05,检验效能(1-β)=80%,应用PASS 11.0(Version 11.0.7,NCSS,美国)进行样本量计算,取栓组样本量N1=28例,对照组样本量N2=48例。应用SPSS 25.0(Version 25.0,IBM)软件进行数据分析。计量资料采用Kolmogorov-Smirnov方法进行正态性检验,符合正态性分布的计量资料以x¯±s表示,组间比较采用独立样本t检验;非正态分布的计量资料以中位数和四分位数[M(P25,P75)]表示,组间比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验;计数资料以频数和百分比[例(%)]表示,组间比较采用χ2检验。由于本研究样本量中预后不良患者例数较少(17例),为减少统计偏倚,将单因素分析中P<0.05及既往研究中明确的影响因素纳入二分类Logistic回归模型进行逐步回归分析,基于向后(似然比)筛选自变量,通过多次迭代,分析轻型卒中患者临床预后的独立影响因素。以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2 结果
2.1 两组患者的一般临床资料比较
取栓组28例,其中男19例,女9例;年龄29~86岁,平均(63±12)岁;其中7例入院行静脉溶栓,静脉溶栓率25.0%。对照组48例,其中男29例,女19例;年龄40~87岁,平均(66±12)岁;其中14例入院行静脉溶栓,静脉溶栓率29.2%。取栓组患者基线NIHSS评分和mRS评分较对照组更高(P<0.05),其余指标组间比较差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。见表1。
2.2 两组患者的结局指标及不良事件对比
取栓组28例患者闭塞血管均成功再通,发生机械取栓相关不良事件4例,全身并发症6例,5例行补救性支架置入,术后90 d获得优异结局19例,良好结局24例,死亡1例(死因为急性心肌梗死)。两组患者的术后90 d良好结局率、END发生率、术后90 d病死率、sICH发生率和全身并发症发生率(包括肺部感染、消化道出血、深静脉血栓、泌尿系统感染)比较,差异均无统计学意义( 均P>0.05)。取栓组患者的术后90 d优异结局率高于对照组患者,差异有统计学意义(P=0.042)。见表2、图1。
2.3 影响LVO-MIS患者临床预后的单因素分析
76例LVO-MIS患者中,预后良好59例和预后不良17例,预后良好率为77.6%;对影响LVO-MIS患者预后的可能因素进行单因素分析,结果显示,年龄、性别、烟酒史、既往病史(高血压病、糖尿病、高脂血症、卒中和TIA史)、基线NIHSS评分、基线mRS评分、发病至入院时间、急性期治疗(包括静脉溶栓和机械取栓)均不是LVO-MIS患者临床结局的影响因素(均P>0.05)。见表3。
2.4 多因素Logistic回归分析影响LVO-MIS患者临床预后的相关因素
由于存在混杂因素的相互抵消作用,单因素分析中未发现与LVO-MIS患者临床预后相关的影响因素。因此,本研究将既往文献中已明确的影响因素,包括年龄[32,33,34,35]、性别[34,36]、基线NIHSS评分[21,33,34]、发病至入院时间[32]、是否行机械取栓[6,37,38]、是否行静脉溶栓[6,34,36,39,40]均纳入多因素回归模型进行分析,进行4次迭代(第5次迭代时终止),结果显示,静脉溶栓治疗(P=0.038)和机械取栓治疗(P=0.030)是LVO-MIS患者术后90 d预后良好的独立保护因素。见表4。
3 讨论
机械取栓治疗作为前循环近端大血管闭塞所致AIS患者的一线治疗方法,在真实世界中已经得到广泛应用。研究证实,机械取栓治疗在急性中重度缺血性卒中(NHISS评分≥6分)合并LVO的患者中具有良好的疗效及安全性[41,42]。但LVO-MIS患者从机械取栓中可能得到的益处似乎不能抵消侵入性手术的风险[38,43],因此关于治疗轻型卒中的最佳方案尚不明确,仍缺乏高质量的研究证据支持机械取栓治疗急性LVO-MIS患者。但研究发现,轻型卒中患者闭塞血管的成功开通对改善预后极其重要,当未实现紧急血管再通时,大约25.8%(223/866)的轻型卒中患者出院时不能独立行走[44],且术后90 d随访临床预后发现患者更容易出现神经功能恶化的情况[36]。
本研究行机械取栓治疗的LVO-MIS患者得到优异结局的比例达67.9%,良好结局的比例达85.7%,出现1例患者术后90 d内死亡,死因为急性心肌梗死,显示了机械取栓相比于标准药物治疗,在实现血管再通和术后90 d临床预后改善方面是安全有效的,同时未增加END、颅内出血等不良事件的发生率,这与Da Ros等[45]研究的结果近似。Alexandre等[38]也认为,机械取栓对因LVO导致的低NIHSS评分(NIHSS评分≤5分)的卒中患者是具有潜在益处的,但软脑膜侧支的代偿可以使发病6 h后的卒中病灶仍维持大量可挽救的神经组织[4,46],因此不能排除这些患者可能受益于延长的机械取栓时间窗[47,48]。
但目前急性期机械取栓治疗在MIS患者中的应用仍有争议,纳入14项研究的荟萃分析结果显示,机械取栓治疗的轻型卒中患者的优异结局(mRS评分0~1分)、良好结局(mRS评分0~2分)比例分别为58.7%和76.2%,病死率和sICH发生率分别为6.82%和3.23%,这并未显示出机械取栓在轻型卒中患者中的结局优势[49]。Kaesmacher等[50]同样观察到,虽然对于NIHSS评分<8分的LVO-AIS患者(193例),成功的血管再灌注(mTICI 2b~3级)与90 d良好的功能结局(mRS评分0~2分,aOR=2.995,95%CI:1.140~7.868,P=0.026)和非出血性神经功能恶化的减少(aOR=0.194,95%CI:0.050~0.756,P=0.018)密切相关,但在NIHSS评分<6分的亚组患者中,再灌注治疗对良好预后无明显优势(aOR=3.690,95%CI:0.911~14.949,P=0.067)。相反地,Wolman等[51]报道了17例采用药物治疗的轻型卒中患者中,11例患者能够功能独立(mRS评分≤2分);而16例采用机械取栓治疗的轻型卒中患者中,只有5例患者得到优异预后(mRS评分0~1分),9例患者能够功能独立,因此与药物治疗相比,机械取栓的风险-效益曲线更差。Xiong等[37]对比了血管内治疗与最佳药物治疗对NIHSS评分≤8分的卒中患者的疗效,发现血管内治疗能够改善患者治疗后90 d的临床预后(OR=1.68,95% CI:1.08~2.61,P=0.02),但sICH发生率明显增加(OR=3.89,95%CI:1.83~8.27,P=0.0004)。一项单中心回顾性研究结果表明,在继发性神经功能恶化的情况下,接受紧急机械取栓或延迟取栓治疗的卒中患者相比于未接受抢救性取栓的患者更能够获得良好的预后结局[14/19比38.1%(8/21),P=0.02][4]。本研究的28例行取栓治疗的轻型卒中患者均成功开通血管,血管再通率为100.0%,其中5例给予了补救性支架治疗后达到血管再通。已有研究认为,补救性支架置入可以解除血栓祛除后的原位血管狭窄,提高稳定的血管再通率[52,53]。
Renieri等[35]研究发现,取栓治疗后的血运重建是近端闭塞MIS患者良好预后的主要预测因素(OR=2.600,95%CI:1.235~5.453,P=0.018)。本研究同样发现了LVO-MIS患者的良好临床结局与机械取栓治疗独立相关。Haussen等[54]在一项队列研究中也得到了类似的结果,在30例NIHSS评分<5分的缺血性卒中患者中,机械取栓治疗与较高的功能独立率(mRS评分≤2分;β=-21.9,95% CI:-41.4~-20.8,P=0.002)和良好的NIHSS评分转移(出院NIHSS评分-入院NIHSS评分;β=-3.7,95%CI:-6.0~-1.5,P=0.016)独立相关。但是,近期多项荟萃分析均观察到,机械取栓治疗也与较高的sICH发生率独立关联[1,37]。因此,我们支持机械取栓在 LVO-MIS患者中良好疗效的同时,应该考虑到sICH等不良事件发生率的升高。本研究还发现,静脉溶栓治疗是影响LVO-MIS患者临床预后的另一个独立因素。一项多中心前瞻性研究同样发现,LVO-MIS患者使用阿替普酶溶栓治疗与成功的血管再通(mTICI≥2b)独立相关(OR=3.80,95% CI:1.11~13.00,P<0.05)[36]。另外,Asdaghi等[55]对比了重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(rt-PA)治疗MIS的潜力(potential of r-tPA for ischemic strokes with mild symptoms, PRISMS)研究与轻度和快速改善卒中研究(mild and rapidly improving stroke study, MaRISS) 两项研究中的MIS患者发现,虽然静脉溶栓患者入院时神经功能缺陷的严重程度明显高于未使用静脉溶栓的患者,但PRISMS研究[56]结果仍显示,阿替普酶静脉溶栓在MIS患者中具有较高的可行性和安全性,并且其结论已经纳入了临床指南[57]。同时多项研究均表明,在轻型卒中患者中,静脉溶栓的使用明显减少了住院并发症,改善了出院时及静脉溶栓术后90 d的独立行走能力[39,40]。
本研究仍然存在以下局限性:首先,虽然数据是前瞻性收集,但本研究是基于单中心的资料进行回顾性研究,因此存在回顾性研究的固有局限。其次,干预方案是基于医师的评估和MRI或CT的影像进行选择的,因此可能存在医师倾向性选择的情况,筛选可能受益于机械取栓的LVO-MIS患者进行血管内治疗,存在潜在选择偏倚。最后,本研究受医疗中心限制,仅纳入小样本的LVO-MIS患者进行探究,因此需要大规模、前瞻性、多中心、随机对照试验进一步研究。
综上所述,机械取栓治疗能够改善急性LVO-MIS患者的临床预后,未增加不良事件的发生风险。在急性LVO-MIS的患者中,机械取栓和静脉溶栓治疗可能与良好的临床预后独立相关,有待更多中心、大样本的研究进一步验证。
参考文献
[1] Goyal N,Tsivgoulis G,Malhotra K,et al.Medical management vs mechanical thrombectomy for mild strokes:an international multicenter study and systematic review and Meta-analysis[J].JAMA Neurol,2020,77(1):16-24.
[2] 王蒙,周俊山,吴奥燕.急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓及血管内治疗研究进展[J].中华神经科杂志,2017,50(5):391-395.
[3] Ferrari J,Krebs S,Sykora M.Intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy in patients with minor or rapidly improving neurological deficits[J].Curr Opin Neurol,2019,32(1):13-18.
[4] Saleem Y,Nogueira RG,Rodrigues GM,et al.Acute neurological deterioration in large vessel occlusions and mild symptoms managed medically[J].Stroke,2020,51(5):1428-1434.
[5] 王伊龙,赵性泉,刘新峰,等.高危非致残性缺血性脑血管事件诊疗指南[J].中国卒中杂志,2016,11(6):481-491.
[6] Heldner MR,Chaloulos-Iakovidis P,Panos L,et al.Outcome of patients with large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation and low NIHSS score[J].J Neurol,2020,267(6):1651-1662.
[7] Powers WJ,Rabinstein AA,Ackerson T,et al.2018 guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke:a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association[J].Stroke,2018,49(3):e46-e110.
[8] Seners P,Turc G,Oppenheim C,et al.Incidence,causes and predictors of neurological deterioration occurring within 24 h following acute ischaemic stroke:a systematic review with pathophysiological implications[J].J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry,2015,86(1):87-94.
[9] Seners P,Ben Hassen W,Lapergue B,et al.Prediction of early neurological deterioration in individuals with minor stroke and large vessel occlusion intended for intravenous thrombolysis alone[J].JAMA Neurol,2021,78(3):321-328.
[10] Kaschner MG,Caspers J,Rubbert C,et al.Mechanical thrombectomy in MCA-mainstem occlusion in patients with low NIHSS scores[J].Interv Neuroradiol,2018,24(4):398-404.
[11] Fan M,Lv J,Yu C,et al.Family history,tobacco smoking,and risk of ischemic stroke[J].J Stroke,2019,21(2):175-183.
[12] Wood AM,Kaptoge S,Butterworth AS,et al.Risk thresholds for alcohol consumption:combined analysis of individual-participant data for 599 912 current drinkers in 83 prospective studies[J].Lancet,2018,391(10129):1513-1523.
[13] Giles TD,Materson BJ,Cohn JN,et al.Definition and classification of hypertension:an update[J].J Clin Hypertens(Greenwich),2009,11(11):611-614.
[14] Harreiter J,Roden M.Diabetes mellitus-definition,classification,diagnosis,screening and prevention(Update 2019)[J].Wien Klin Wochenschr,2019,131(Suppl 1):6-15.
[15] 诸骏仁,高润霖,赵水平,等.中国成人血脂异常防治指南(2016年修订版)[J].中华心血管病杂志,2016,44(10):833-853.
[16] Hindricks G,Potpara T,Dagres N,et al.2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery(EACTS):the task force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology(ESC) developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association(EHRA) of the ESC[J].Eur Heart J,2021,42(5):373-498.
[17] Knuuti J,Wijns W,Saraste A,et al.2019 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes[J].Eur Heart J,2020,41(3):407-477.
[18] 中华医学会,中华医学会杂志社,中华医学会全科医学分会,等.缺血性卒中基层诊疗指南(2021年)[J].中华全科医师杂志,2021,20(9):927-946.
[19] 彭斌,吴波.中国急性缺血性脑卒中诊治指南2018[J].中华神经科杂志,2018,51(9):666-682.
[20] 刘新峰,孙文,朱武生,等.中国急性缺血性脑卒中早期血管内介入诊疗指南2018[J].中华神经科杂志,2018,51(9):683-691.
[21] Adams HP Jr,Davis PH,Leira EC,et al.Baseline NIH stroke scale score strongly predicts outcome after stroke:a report of the trial of Org 10172 in acute stroke treatment(TOAST)[J].Neurology,1999,53(1):126-131.
[22] Chalos V,van der Ende N,Lingsma HF,et al.National Institutes of Health stroke scale:an alternative primary outcome measure for trials of acute treatment for ischemic stroke[J].Stroke,2020,51(1):282-290.
[23] Lees KR,Bath PM,Schellinger PD,et al.Contemporary outcome measures in acute stroke research:choice of primary outcome measure[J].Stroke,2012,43(4):1163-1170.
[24] 陈松,王驰,王伟,等.急性颅内前循环大血管闭塞血管内治疗再通后早期神经功能恶化的影响因素分析[J].中国脑血管病杂志,2022,19(2):73-78,108.
[25] Hacke W,Kaste M,Bluhmki E,et al.Thrombolysis with alteplase 3 to 4.5 hours after acute ischemic stroke[J].N Engl J Med,2008,359(13):1317-1329.
[26] Hacke W,Kaste M,Fieschi C,et al.Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of thrombolytic therapy with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke(ECASS Ⅱ).Second European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study Investigators[J].Lancet,1998,352(9136):1245-1251.
[27] 刘颖,丁晶,汪昕.急性缺血性卒中血管内治疗无效再通的研究进展[J].中国卒中杂志,2021,16(10):1067-1074.
[28] 王长彬,马立娟.急性缺血性脑卒中动脉血运重建术后即刻CT颅内高密度影影像分析[J].实用放射学杂志,2020,36(2):189-193.
[29] Yeo L,Holmberg A,Mpotsaris A,et al.Posterior circulation occlusions may be associated with distal emboli during thrombectomy:factors for distal embolization and a review of the literature[J].Clin Neuroradiol,2019,29(3):425-433.
[30] Liu F,Shen H,Chen C,et al.Mechanical thrombectomy for acute stroke due to large-vessel occlusion presenting with mild symptoms[J].Front Neurol,2021,12:739267.
[31] Alexandre AM,Valente I,Pedicelli A,et al.Mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation and low baseline National Institute of Health stroke scale score:a multicenter retrospective matched analysis[J].Neurol Sci,2022,43(5):3105-3112.
[32] Asdaghi N,Yavagal DR,Wang K,et al.Patterns and outcomes of endovascular therapy in mild stroke[J].Stroke,2019,50(8):2101-2107.
[33] Maus V,You S,Kalkan A,et al.Incomplete large vessel occlusions in mechanical thrombectomy:an independent predictor of favorable outcome in ischemic stroke[J].Cerebrovasc Dis,2017,44(3/4):113-121.
[34] Saber H,Khatibi K,Szeder V,et al.Reperfusion therapy frequency and outcomes in mild ischemic stroke in the United States[J].Stroke,2020,51(11):3241-3249.
[35] Renieri L,Saia V,Pereira VM,et al.Mechanical thrombectomy in patients with proximal occlusions and low NIHSS:results from a large prospective registry[J].J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis,2020,29(10):105091.
[36] Lau HL,Gardener H,Coutts SB,et al.Radiographic characteristics of mild ischemic stroke patients with visible intracranial occlusion:the INTERRSeCT study[J].Stroke,2022,53(3):913-920.
[37] Xiong YJ,Gong JM,Zhang YC,et al.Endovascular thrombectomy versus medical treatment for large vessel occlusion stroke with mild symptoms:a Meta-analysis[J].PLoS One,2018,13(8):e0203066.
[38] Alexandre AM,Valente I,Frisullo G,et al.Mechanical thrombectomy in patients with stroke due to large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation and low baseline NIHSS score[J].J Integr Neurosci,2021,20(3):645-650.
[39] Asaithambi G,Tong X,Coleman King SM,et al.Contemporary trends in the treatment of mild ischemic stroke with intravenous thrombolysis:Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Program[J].Cerebrovasc Dis,2022,51(1):60-66.
[40] Tsivgoulis G,Goyal N,Katsanos AH,et al.Intravenous thrombolysis for large vessel or distal occlusions presenting with mild stroke severity[J].Eur J Neurol,2020,27(6):1039-1047.
[41] Nogueira RG,Jadhav AP,Haussen DC,et al.Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke with a mismatch between deficit and infarct[J].N Engl J Med,2018,378(1):11-21.
[42] Saber H,Rajah GB,Kherallah RY,et al.Comparison of the efficacy and safety of thrombectomy devices in acute stroke:a network Meta-analysis of randomized trials[J].J Neurointerv Surg,2018,10(8):729-734.
[43] Sporns PB,Fiehler J,Ospel J,et al.Expanding indications for endovascular thrombectomy-how to leave no patient behind[J].Ther Adv Neurol Disord,2021,14:1756286421998905.
[44] Sporns PB,Brehm A,Hilgers C,et al.Distribution of diagnoses and clinical and imaging characteristics in 1 322 consecutive suspected stroke patients[J].Front Neurol,2021,12:753183.
[45] Da Ros V,Cortese J,Chassin O,et al.Thrombectomy or intravenous thrombolysis in patients with NIHSS of 5 or less?[J].J Neuroradiol,2019,46(4):225-230.
[46] Kim B,Jung C,Nam HS,et al.Comparison between perfusion- and collateral-based triage for endovascular thrombectomy in a late time window[J].Stroke,2019,50(12):3465-3470.
[47] Alexandre AM,Pedicelli A,Valente I,et al.May endovascular thrombectomy without CT perfusion improve clinical outcome?[J].Clin Neurol Neurosurg,2020,198:106207.
[48] Rocha M,Desai S,Son J,et al.Clinical characteristics of fast and slow progressors of infarct growth in anterior circulation large vessel occlusion stroke[J].J Cereb Blood Flow Metab,2021,41(7):271678X211015068.
[49] Wu X,Khunte M,Payabvash S,et al.Outcomes after thrombectomy for minor stroke:a Meta-analysis[J].World Neurosurg,2021,149:e1140-e1154.
[50] Kaesmacher J,Chaloulos-Iakovidis P,Panos L,et al.Clinical effect of successful reperfusion in patients presenting with NIHSS<8:data from the BEYOND-SWIFT registry[J].J Neurol,2019,266(3):598-608.
[51] Wolman DN,Marcellus DG,Lansberg MG,et al.Endovascular versus medical therapy for large-vessel anterior occlusive stroke presenting with mild symptoms[J].Int J Stroke,2020,15(3):324-331.
[52] 陈付文,刘金朝,赵玉铁,等.补救性支架植入在急性颅内大血管闭塞性脑梗死机械取栓再通失败后的临床应用分析[J].中华神经医学杂志,2019,18(2):156-161.
[53] Sweid A,Sajja KC,Mouchtouris N,et al.Rescue stenting for acute ischemic stroke with refractory emergent large vessel occlusion in the modern thrombectomy era[J].Clin Neurol Neurosurg,2022,215:107183.
[54] Haussen DC,Lima FO,Bouslama M,et al.Thrombectomy versus medical management for large vessel occlusion strokes with minimal symptoms:an analysis from STOPStroke and GESTOR cohorts[J].J Neurointerv Surg,2018,10(4):325-329.
[55] Asdaghi N,Romano JG,Gardener H,et al.Thrombolysis in mild stroke:a comparative analysis of the PRISMS and MaRISS studies[J].Stroke,2021,52(10):e586-e589.
[56] Khatri P,Kleindorfer DO,Devlin T,et al.Effect of alteplase vs aspirin on functional outcome for patients with acute ischemic dtroke and minor nondisabling neurologic deficits:the PRISMS randomized clinical trial[J].JAMA,2018,320(2):156-166.
[57] Powers WJ,Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T,et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke:2019 update to the 2018 guidelines for the early management of acute ischemic stroke:aguideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association[J]. Stroke ,2019,50(12):e344-e418.
本文链接:http://www.qk112.com/lwfw/yxlw/qitayixue/127200.html