BACKGROUND Intravenous thrombolysis is an important treatment for cerebral infarction.However,it is difficult to achieve good results if the patient is complicated with anterior circulation macrovascular occlusion.In ...BACKGROUND Intravenous thrombolysis is an important treatment for cerebral infarction.However,it is difficult to achieve good results if the patient is complicated with anterior circulation macrovascular occlusion.In addition,the vascular recanalization rate is low,so mechanical thrombectomy,that is,bridging therapy,is needed AIM To investigate the efficacy and safety of bridging therapy and direct mechanical thrombectomy in the treatment of cardiogenic cerebral infarction with anterior circulation macrovascular occlusion.METHODS Ninety-six patients in our hospital with cardiogenic cerebral infarction with anterior circulation macrovascular occlusion from January 2017 to July 2020 were divided into a direct thrombectomy group(n=48)and a bridging group(n=48).Direct mechanical thrombectomy was performed in the direct thrombectomy group,and bridging therapy was used in the bridging treatment group.Comparisons were performed for the treatment data of the two groups(from admission to imaging examination,from admission to arterial puncture,from arterial puncture to vascular recanalization,and from admission to vascular recanalization),vascular recanalization rate,National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale(NIHSS)and Glasgow Coma Scale(GCS)scores before and after treatment,prognosis and incidence of adverse events.RESULTS In the direct thrombectomy group,the time from admission to imaging examination was 24.32±8.61 min,from admission to arterial puncture was 95.56±37.55 min,from arterial puncture to vascular recanalization was 54.29±21.38 min,and from admission to revascularization was 156.88±45.51 min,and the corresponding times in the bridging treatment group were 25.38±9.33 min,100.45±39.30 min,58.14±25.56 min,and 161.23±51.15 min;there were no significant differences between groups(P=0.564,0.535,0.426,and 0.661,respectively).There was no significant difference in the recanalization rate between the direct thrombectomy group(79.17%)and the bridging group(75.00%)(P=0.627).There were no significant differences between the direct thrombectomy group(16.69±4.91 and 12.12±2.07)and the bridging group(7.13±1.23) and(14.40±0.59)in preoperative NIHSS score and GCS score(P=0.200 and 0.203,respectively).After the operation,the NIHSS scores in both groups were lower than those before the operation,and the GCS scores were higher than those before the operation.There was no significant difference in NIHSS and GCS scores between the direct thrombectomy group(6.91±1.10 and 14.19±0.65)and the bridging group(7.13±1.23 and 14.40±0.59)(P=0.358 and 0.101,respectively).There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who achieved a good prognosis between the direct thrombectomy group(52.08%)and the bridging group(50.008%)(P=0.838).There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the direct thrombectomy group(6.25%)and the bridging group(8.33%)(P=0.913).CONCLUSION Bridging therapy and direct mechanical thrombectomy can safely treat cardiogenic cerebral infarction with anterior circulation macrovascular occlusion,achieve good vascular recanalization effects and prognoses,and improve the neurological function of patients.展开更多
Objective:To investigate the clinical effects of applying the magnetic resonance double mismatch technique to endovascular treatment of acute anterior circulation,large vessel occlusion with cerebral infarction in an ...Objective:To investigate the clinical effects of applying the magnetic resonance double mismatch technique to endovascular treatment of acute anterior circulation,large vessel occlusion with cerebral infarction in an unknown time window.Methods:The research work was carried out in our hospital,the work was carried out from November 2018 to November 2019,the patients with acute anterior circulation large vessel occlusion with cerebral infarction who were treated in our hospital during this period,100 patients,50 patients with an unknown time window and 50 patients with definite time window were selected,and they were named as the experimental and control groups,given different examination methods,were given to investigate the clinical treatment effect.Results:Patients’data on HIHSS score before treatment,the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage and rate of Mrs≤2 rating after 90 days of treatment were not significantly different(P>0.05),which was not meaningful.The differences in data between the two groups concerning HIHSS scores were relatively significant before,and after treatment(P<0.05).Conclusion:The magnetic resonance double mismatch technique will be applied in the endovascular treatment of acute anterior circulation large vessel occlusion with cerebral infarction of unknown time window.展开更多
目的分析急性前循环脑梗死血管内治疗后发生血管痉挛的影响因素,探讨血管痉挛对患者预后的影响。方法回顾性收集2020-01—2023-06就诊于南充市中心医院的428例急性前循环脑梗死且接受血管内治疗患者的临床资料,根据患者是否在治疗期间...目的分析急性前循环脑梗死血管内治疗后发生血管痉挛的影响因素,探讨血管痉挛对患者预后的影响。方法回顾性收集2020-01—2023-06就诊于南充市中心医院的428例急性前循环脑梗死且接受血管内治疗患者的临床资料,根据患者是否在治疗期间发生血管痉挛进行分组。比较2组临床资料,进行单因素与多因素Logistic回归分析,探讨影响血管痉挛发生的因素。比较2组改良脑梗死溶栓(mTICI)分级,分析血管痉挛是否影响患者预后。结果纳入428例患者,其中34例发生血管痉挛。单因素分析显示2组间年龄、冠心病、高血压、术前改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分、总取栓次数、支架取栓次数差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。多因素分析表明年龄和术前mRS评分是血管痉挛发生的独立影响因素。2组间mTICI分级、术后90 d mRS评分、24 h和出院时NIHSS评分无统计学差异(P>0.05),血管痉挛未对急性前循环脑梗死患者预后产生影响。结论急性前循环脑梗死患者年龄、术前mRS评分是血管内治疗期间血管痉挛发生的独立影响因素,取栓总次数和支架取栓次数可能影响血管痉挛的发生。急性前循环脑梗死患者血管内治疗后发生血管痉挛并未降低再灌注成功的可能性,且不影响患者预后。展开更多
目的:探究替罗非班联合机械取栓对急性前循环脑梗死患者血管再通率及短期预后的影响。方法:将2018年8月至2022年7月江南大学附属医院收治的85例急性前循环脑梗死患者按治疗方式不同分为对照组(机械取栓治疗;n=41)与研究组(替罗非班联合...目的:探究替罗非班联合机械取栓对急性前循环脑梗死患者血管再通率及短期预后的影响。方法:将2018年8月至2022年7月江南大学附属医院收治的85例急性前循环脑梗死患者按治疗方式不同分为对照组(机械取栓治疗;n=41)与研究组(替罗非班联合机械取栓治疗;n=44)。观察2组临床疗效及短期预后情况,并比较治疗前、后2组血液流变学指标、美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale,NIHSS)评分及日常生活能力改良Barthel指数(modified Barthel index,MBI)评分。结果:研究组血管再通率为90.91%,高于对照组的70.73%(P<0.05);2组治疗后红细胞比容、血浆黏度及全血高切黏度均低于治疗前,且研究组低于对照组(均P<0.05);2组治疗后NIHSS评分低于治疗前,MBI评分高于治疗前,且研究组优于对照组(均P<0.05);研究组治疗后90 d预后良好率为68.18%,高于对照组的43.90%(P<0.05);治疗后90 d内,2组颅内出血、再闭塞发生率与病死率比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论:替罗非班联合机械取栓治疗急性前循环脑梗死的血管再通率更高,有利于短期预后。展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Intravenous thrombolysis is an important treatment for cerebral infarction.However,it is difficult to achieve good results if the patient is complicated with anterior circulation macrovascular occlusion.In addition,the vascular recanalization rate is low,so mechanical thrombectomy,that is,bridging therapy,is needed AIM To investigate the efficacy and safety of bridging therapy and direct mechanical thrombectomy in the treatment of cardiogenic cerebral infarction with anterior circulation macrovascular occlusion.METHODS Ninety-six patients in our hospital with cardiogenic cerebral infarction with anterior circulation macrovascular occlusion from January 2017 to July 2020 were divided into a direct thrombectomy group(n=48)and a bridging group(n=48).Direct mechanical thrombectomy was performed in the direct thrombectomy group,and bridging therapy was used in the bridging treatment group.Comparisons were performed for the treatment data of the two groups(from admission to imaging examination,from admission to arterial puncture,from arterial puncture to vascular recanalization,and from admission to vascular recanalization),vascular recanalization rate,National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale(NIHSS)and Glasgow Coma Scale(GCS)scores before and after treatment,prognosis and incidence of adverse events.RESULTS In the direct thrombectomy group,the time from admission to imaging examination was 24.32±8.61 min,from admission to arterial puncture was 95.56±37.55 min,from arterial puncture to vascular recanalization was 54.29±21.38 min,and from admission to revascularization was 156.88±45.51 min,and the corresponding times in the bridging treatment group were 25.38±9.33 min,100.45±39.30 min,58.14±25.56 min,and 161.23±51.15 min;there were no significant differences between groups(P=0.564,0.535,0.426,and 0.661,respectively).There was no significant difference in the recanalization rate between the direct thrombectomy group(79.17%)and the bridging group(75.00%)(P=0.627).There were no significant differences between the direct thrombectomy group(16.69±4.91 and 12.12±2.07)and the bridging group(7.13±1.23) and(14.40±0.59)in preoperative NIHSS score and GCS score(P=0.200 and 0.203,respectively).After the operation,the NIHSS scores in both groups were lower than those before the operation,and the GCS scores were higher than those before the operation.There was no significant difference in NIHSS and GCS scores between the direct thrombectomy group(6.91±1.10 and 14.19±0.65)and the bridging group(7.13±1.23 and 14.40±0.59)(P=0.358 and 0.101,respectively).There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who achieved a good prognosis between the direct thrombectomy group(52.08%)and the bridging group(50.008%)(P=0.838).There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the direct thrombectomy group(6.25%)and the bridging group(8.33%)(P=0.913).CONCLUSION Bridging therapy and direct mechanical thrombectomy can safely treat cardiogenic cerebral infarction with anterior circulation macrovascular occlusion,achieve good vascular recanalization effects and prognoses,and improve the neurological function of patients.
文摘Objective:To investigate the clinical effects of applying the magnetic resonance double mismatch technique to endovascular treatment of acute anterior circulation,large vessel occlusion with cerebral infarction in an unknown time window.Methods:The research work was carried out in our hospital,the work was carried out from November 2018 to November 2019,the patients with acute anterior circulation large vessel occlusion with cerebral infarction who were treated in our hospital during this period,100 patients,50 patients with an unknown time window and 50 patients with definite time window were selected,and they were named as the experimental and control groups,given different examination methods,were given to investigate the clinical treatment effect.Results:Patients’data on HIHSS score before treatment,the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage and rate of Mrs≤2 rating after 90 days of treatment were not significantly different(P>0.05),which was not meaningful.The differences in data between the two groups concerning HIHSS scores were relatively significant before,and after treatment(P<0.05).Conclusion:The magnetic resonance double mismatch technique will be applied in the endovascular treatment of acute anterior circulation large vessel occlusion with cerebral infarction of unknown time window.
文摘目的分析急性前循环脑梗死血管内治疗后发生血管痉挛的影响因素,探讨血管痉挛对患者预后的影响。方法回顾性收集2020-01—2023-06就诊于南充市中心医院的428例急性前循环脑梗死且接受血管内治疗患者的临床资料,根据患者是否在治疗期间发生血管痉挛进行分组。比较2组临床资料,进行单因素与多因素Logistic回归分析,探讨影响血管痉挛发生的因素。比较2组改良脑梗死溶栓(mTICI)分级,分析血管痉挛是否影响患者预后。结果纳入428例患者,其中34例发生血管痉挛。单因素分析显示2组间年龄、冠心病、高血压、术前改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分、总取栓次数、支架取栓次数差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。多因素分析表明年龄和术前mRS评分是血管痉挛发生的独立影响因素。2组间mTICI分级、术后90 d mRS评分、24 h和出院时NIHSS评分无统计学差异(P>0.05),血管痉挛未对急性前循环脑梗死患者预后产生影响。结论急性前循环脑梗死患者年龄、术前mRS评分是血管内治疗期间血管痉挛发生的独立影响因素,取栓总次数和支架取栓次数可能影响血管痉挛的发生。急性前循环脑梗死患者血管内治疗后发生血管痉挛并未降低再灌注成功的可能性,且不影响患者预后。
文摘目的:探究替罗非班联合机械取栓对急性前循环脑梗死患者血管再通率及短期预后的影响。方法:将2018年8月至2022年7月江南大学附属医院收治的85例急性前循环脑梗死患者按治疗方式不同分为对照组(机械取栓治疗;n=41)与研究组(替罗非班联合机械取栓治疗;n=44)。观察2组临床疗效及短期预后情况,并比较治疗前、后2组血液流变学指标、美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale,NIHSS)评分及日常生活能力改良Barthel指数(modified Barthel index,MBI)评分。结果:研究组血管再通率为90.91%,高于对照组的70.73%(P<0.05);2组治疗后红细胞比容、血浆黏度及全血高切黏度均低于治疗前,且研究组低于对照组(均P<0.05);2组治疗后NIHSS评分低于治疗前,MBI评分高于治疗前,且研究组优于对照组(均P<0.05);研究组治疗后90 d预后良好率为68.18%,高于对照组的43.90%(P<0.05);治疗后90 d内,2组颅内出血、再闭塞发生率与病死率比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论:替罗非班联合机械取栓治疗急性前循环脑梗死的血管再通率更高,有利于短期预后。
