Andrea M Alexandre, Luca Scarcia, Arturo Consoli, Wen Sun, Yingjie Xu, Xianjun Huang, Charlotte Chung, Alessandro Sgreccia, Mohamad Abdalkader, Nicola Limbucci, Alessandro Pedicelli, Davide De Leoni, Maria P Ganimede, Chiara Gaudino, Riccardo Russo, Chrysanthi Papagiannaki, Roberta Partesano, Nicolò Mandruzzato, Joseph D Gabrieli, Pietro Panni, Andrea Zini, Frédéric Clarençon, Eytan Raz, Thanh N Nguyen, Aldobrando Broccolini
{"title":"溶栓后紧急颅内支架置入的安全性:一项多中心匹配分析。","authors":"Andrea M Alexandre, Luca Scarcia, Arturo Consoli, Wen Sun, Yingjie Xu, Xianjun Huang, Charlotte Chung, Alessandro Sgreccia, Mohamad Abdalkader, Nicola Limbucci, Alessandro Pedicelli, Davide De Leoni, Maria P Ganimede, Chiara Gaudino, Riccardo Russo, Chrysanthi Papagiannaki, Roberta Partesano, Nicolò Mandruzzato, Joseph D Gabrieli, Pietro Panni, Andrea Zini, Frédéric Clarençon, Eytan Raz, Thanh N Nguyen, Aldobrando Broccolini","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>In patients with acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) of the MCA and underlying intracranial artery stenosis (ICAS), rescue stenting (RS) has been associated with better angiographic outcomes and higher rates of functional independence compared to mechanical thrombectomy (MT) alone. However, uncertainty exists regarding safety of RS in patients at higher risk for intracranial bleeding.The primary aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to compare safety outcomes between patients with acute ICAS-LVO of the MCA who underwent MT and RS with or without prior intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). Efficacy outcomes were assessed as a secondary aim.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We screened the prospective databases of 26 stroke centers across Europe, the United States, and China for consecutive patients with acute MCA ICAS-LVO who received RS. Patients were divided into two groups based on prior administration of IVT: IVT/RS and no-IVT/RS. Propensity score matching (PSM), based on a set of covariates that also included peri-procedural antiplatelet therapies, was used to estimate the effect of IVT treatment. Primary safety outcomes were the occurrence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and 90-day mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After PSM, 52 pairs of patients were available for analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding rates of sICH (11.5% in IVT/RS group vs. 9.6% in no-IVT/RS group, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.4-4.3, p = 0.75) and 90-day mortality (14.3% in the IVT/RS group vs. 11.7% in the no-IVT/RS group, OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.4-4.2, p = 0.71). There were also no significant differences in the occurrence of parenchymal hemorrhage types 1 and 2, successful recanalization rates and 90-day functional outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The safety of RS in ICAS-LVO is not significantly affected by prior IVT administration. Furthermore, IVT does not result in improved recanalization and clinical outcome. These findings should be interpreted with caution and require validation through future randomized controlled studies.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>MT= mechanical thrombectomy; LVO= large vessel occlusion; ICAS = intracranial artery stenosis; RS = rescue stenting; IVT = intravenous thrombolysis; sICH = symptomatic intracranial Hemorrhage; PH = parenchymal hematoma; SD = standard deviation; IQR = interquartile range; PSM = propensity score matching; SMD = standardized mean difference; OTG = onset-to-groin; GPI = glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety of emergent intracranial stenting after thrombolysis: a multicenter matched analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Andrea M Alexandre, Luca Scarcia, Arturo Consoli, Wen Sun, Yingjie Xu, Xianjun Huang, Charlotte Chung, Alessandro Sgreccia, Mohamad Abdalkader, Nicola Limbucci, Alessandro Pedicelli, Davide De Leoni, Maria P Ganimede, Chiara Gaudino, Riccardo Russo, Chrysanthi Papagiannaki, Roberta Partesano, Nicolò Mandruzzato, Joseph D Gabrieli, Pietro Panni, Andrea Zini, Frédéric Clarençon, Eytan Raz, Thanh N Nguyen, Aldobrando Broccolini\",\"doi\":\"10.3174/ajnr.A8918\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>In patients with acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) of the MCA and underlying intracranial artery stenosis (ICAS), rescue stenting (RS) has been associated with better angiographic outcomes and higher rates of functional independence compared to mechanical thrombectomy (MT) alone. However, uncertainty exists regarding safety of RS in patients at higher risk for intracranial bleeding.The primary aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to compare safety outcomes between patients with acute ICAS-LVO of the MCA who underwent MT and RS with or without prior intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). Efficacy outcomes were assessed as a secondary aim.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We screened the prospective databases of 26 stroke centers across Europe, the United States, and China for consecutive patients with acute MCA ICAS-LVO who received RS. Patients were divided into two groups based on prior administration of IVT: IVT/RS and no-IVT/RS. Propensity score matching (PSM), based on a set of covariates that also included peri-procedural antiplatelet therapies, was used to estimate the effect of IVT treatment. Primary safety outcomes were the occurrence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and 90-day mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After PSM, 52 pairs of patients were available for analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding rates of sICH (11.5% in IVT/RS group vs. 9.6% in no-IVT/RS group, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.4-4.3, p = 0.75) and 90-day mortality (14.3% in the IVT/RS group vs. 11.7% in the no-IVT/RS group, OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.4-4.2, p = 0.71). There were also no significant differences in the occurrence of parenchymal hemorrhage types 1 and 2, successful recanalization rates and 90-day functional outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The safety of RS in ICAS-LVO is not significantly affected by prior IVT administration. Furthermore, IVT does not result in improved recanalization and clinical outcome. These findings should be interpreted with caution and require validation through future randomized controlled studies.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>MT= mechanical thrombectomy; LVO= large vessel occlusion; ICAS = intracranial artery stenosis; RS = rescue stenting; IVT = intravenous thrombolysis; sICH = symptomatic intracranial Hemorrhage; PH = parenchymal hematoma; SD = standard deviation; IQR = interquartile range; PSM = propensity score matching; SMD = standardized mean difference; OTG = onset-to-groin; GPI = glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93863,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8918\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8918","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景和目的:在MCA急性大血管闭塞(LVO)和潜在颅内动脉狭窄(ICAS)的患者中,与单独机械取栓(MT)相比,救援支架(RS)与更好的血管造影结果和更高的功能独立性相关。然而,对于颅内出血风险较高的患者,RS的安全性存在不确定性。这项回顾性多中心研究的主要目的是比较接受MT和RS治疗的MCA急性ICAS-LVO患者有或没有静脉溶栓(IVT)的安全性结果。评估疗效结果作为次要目的。方法:我们筛选了欧洲、美国和中国26个脑卒中中心的前瞻性数据库,筛选了连续接受静脉注射的急性MCA ICAS-LVO患者,根据患者是否接受过静脉注射分为两组:静脉注射/静脉注射组和不接受静脉注射/静脉注射组。倾向评分匹配(PSM),基于一组协变量,也包括围手术期抗血小板治疗,用于估计IVT治疗的效果。主要的安全结局是出现症状性颅内出血(siich)和90天死亡率。结果:经PSM后,有52对患者可供分析。两组间siich发生率(IVT/RS组为11.5%,未IVT/RS组为9.6%,OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.4-4.3, p = 0.75)和90天死亡率(IVT/RS组为14.3%,未IVT/RS组为11.7%,OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.4-4.2, p = 0.71)无显著差异。在1型和2型实质出血的发生率、成功再通率和90天功能预后方面也无显著差异。结论:IVT治疗对ICAS-LVO患者RS的安全性无显著影响。此外,IVT不能改善再通和临床结果。这些发现应谨慎解释,并需要通过未来的随机对照研究进行验证。缩写:MT=机械取栓术;LVO=大血管闭塞;ICAS =颅内动脉狭窄;RS =抢救支架置入术;静脉溶栓;症状性颅内出血;PH =实质血肿;SD =标准差;四分位间距;PSM =倾向得分匹配;标准化平均差;OTG =发病至腹股沟;GPI =糖蛋白IIb/IIIa抑制剂。
Safety of emergent intracranial stenting after thrombolysis: a multicenter matched analysis.
Background and purpose: In patients with acute large vessel occlusion (LVO) of the MCA and underlying intracranial artery stenosis (ICAS), rescue stenting (RS) has been associated with better angiographic outcomes and higher rates of functional independence compared to mechanical thrombectomy (MT) alone. However, uncertainty exists regarding safety of RS in patients at higher risk for intracranial bleeding.The primary aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to compare safety outcomes between patients with acute ICAS-LVO of the MCA who underwent MT and RS with or without prior intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). Efficacy outcomes were assessed as a secondary aim.
Methods: We screened the prospective databases of 26 stroke centers across Europe, the United States, and China for consecutive patients with acute MCA ICAS-LVO who received RS. Patients were divided into two groups based on prior administration of IVT: IVT/RS and no-IVT/RS. Propensity score matching (PSM), based on a set of covariates that also included peri-procedural antiplatelet therapies, was used to estimate the effect of IVT treatment. Primary safety outcomes were the occurrence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and 90-day mortality.
Results: After PSM, 52 pairs of patients were available for analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding rates of sICH (11.5% in IVT/RS group vs. 9.6% in no-IVT/RS group, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.4-4.3, p = 0.75) and 90-day mortality (14.3% in the IVT/RS group vs. 11.7% in the no-IVT/RS group, OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.4-4.2, p = 0.71). There were also no significant differences in the occurrence of parenchymal hemorrhage types 1 and 2, successful recanalization rates and 90-day functional outcome.
Conclusions: The safety of RS in ICAS-LVO is not significantly affected by prior IVT administration. Furthermore, IVT does not result in improved recanalization and clinical outcome. These findings should be interpreted with caution and require validation through future randomized controlled studies.