Direct Thrombectomy versus Bridging for Patients with Emergent Large-Vessel Occlusions.

Q1 Medicine
Interventional Neurology Pub Date : 2018-10-01 Epub Date: 2018-07-04 DOI:10.1159/000489575
Ronen R Leker, Jose E Cohen, David Tanne, David Orion, Gregory Telman, Guy Raphaeli, Jacob Amsalem, Jonathan Y Streifler, Hen Hallevi, Pavel Gavriliuc, Natan M Bornstein, Anat Horev, Nour Eddine Yaghmour
{"title":"Direct Thrombectomy versus Bridging for Patients with Emergent Large-Vessel Occlusions.","authors":"Ronen R Leker,&nbsp;Jose E Cohen,&nbsp;David Tanne,&nbsp;David Orion,&nbsp;Gregory Telman,&nbsp;Guy Raphaeli,&nbsp;Jacob Amsalem,&nbsp;Jonathan Y Streifler,&nbsp;Hen Hallevi,&nbsp;Pavel Gavriliuc,&nbsp;Natan M Bornstein,&nbsp;Anat Horev,&nbsp;Nour Eddine Yaghmour","doi":"10.1159/000489575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Patients with emergent large-vessel occlusion (ELVO) that present earlier than 4 h from onset are usually treated with bridging systemic thrombolysis followed by endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Whether direct EVT (dEVT) could improve the chances of favorable outcome remains unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutively, prospectively enrolled patients with ELVO presenting within 4 h of onset were entered into a National Acute Stroke Registry of patients undergoing revascularization. Patients treated with bridging were compared to those treated with dEVT. Excellent outcome was defined as having a modified Rankin Scale score ≤1 at 90 days following stroke.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 392 patients that underwent thrombectomy, 270 (68%) presented within 4 h and were included. Of those, 159 (59%) underwent bridging and 111 (41%) underwent dEVT. Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure were more common in the dEVT group (43 vs. 30%, <i>p</i> = 0.04 and 20 vs. 8%, <i>p</i> = 0.009, respectively), but other risk factors, demographics, stroke severity and subtypes as well as baseline vessel patency state and time metrics did not differ. Excellent target vessel recanalization defined as TICI 3 (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score) was more common in the dEVT group (75 vs. 61%, <i>p</i> = 0.03), but in-hospital mortality, discharge destinations, short- and long-term excellent outcome rates did not differ. On multivariate regression analysis, treatment modality did not significantly modify the chances of excellent outcome at discharge (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.3-1.5) or at 3 months (OR 0.78 95% CI 0.4-1.4).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The chances of attaining excellent functional outcomes are similar in ELVO patients undergoing dEVT or bridging.</p>","PeriodicalId":46280,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000489575","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000489575","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background and aims: Patients with emergent large-vessel occlusion (ELVO) that present earlier than 4 h from onset are usually treated with bridging systemic thrombolysis followed by endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Whether direct EVT (dEVT) could improve the chances of favorable outcome remains unknown.

Methods: Consecutively, prospectively enrolled patients with ELVO presenting within 4 h of onset were entered into a National Acute Stroke Registry of patients undergoing revascularization. Patients treated with bridging were compared to those treated with dEVT. Excellent outcome was defined as having a modified Rankin Scale score ≤1 at 90 days following stroke.

Results: Out of 392 patients that underwent thrombectomy, 270 (68%) presented within 4 h and were included. Of those, 159 (59%) underwent bridging and 111 (41%) underwent dEVT. Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure were more common in the dEVT group (43 vs. 30%, p = 0.04 and 20 vs. 8%, p = 0.009, respectively), but other risk factors, demographics, stroke severity and subtypes as well as baseline vessel patency state and time metrics did not differ. Excellent target vessel recanalization defined as TICI 3 (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score) was more common in the dEVT group (75 vs. 61%, p = 0.03), but in-hospital mortality, discharge destinations, short- and long-term excellent outcome rates did not differ. On multivariate regression analysis, treatment modality did not significantly modify the chances of excellent outcome at discharge (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.3-1.5) or at 3 months (OR 0.78 95% CI 0.4-1.4).

Conclusions: The chances of attaining excellent functional outcomes are similar in ELVO patients undergoing dEVT or bridging.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

急诊大血管闭塞患者直接取栓与桥接。
背景和目的:突发大血管闭塞(ELVO)患者发病时间早于4小时,通常采用桥式全身性溶栓治疗,然后进行血管内取栓(EVT)。是否直接EVT (dEVT)可以提高有利结果的机会仍然未知。方法:连续,前瞻性入组的发病后4小时内出现ELVO的患者被输入国家急性卒中患者血运重建术登记处。将桥接治疗的患者与dEVT治疗的患者进行比较。卒中后90天改良Rankin量表评分≤1分定义为预后优秀。结果:在392例接受取栓术的患者中,270例(68%)在4小时内出现并被纳入研究。其中159例(59%)行桥接,111例(41%)行dEVT。房颤和充血性心力衰竭在dEVT组中更为常见(分别为43%对30%,p = 0.04和20%对8%,p = 0.009),但其他危险因素、人口统计学、卒中严重程度和亚型以及基线血管通畅状态和时间指标没有差异。良好的靶血管再通定义为TICI 3(脑梗死溶栓评分)在dEVT组中更为常见(75%对61%,p = 0.03),但住院死亡率、出院目的地、短期和长期良好转归率没有差异。在多变量回归分析中,治疗方式并没有显著改变出院时预后良好的机会(OR 0.7;95% CI 0.3-1.5)或3个月时(or 0.78 95% CI 0.4-1.4)。结论:接受dEVT或桥接的ELVO患者获得良好功能结果的机会相似。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Interventional Neurology
Interventional Neurology CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信