Stroke is an important cause of death and disability in adults. However, effective treatments for patients with acute ischemic stroke are limited. Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator(iv rtPA) within 4...Stroke is an important cause of death and disability in adults. However, effective treatments for patients with acute ischemic stroke are limited. Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator(iv rtPA) within 4.5 h after onset has been approved as a standard treatment for patients with acute ischemic stroke. However, due to time constraints, less than one percent of acute ischemic stroke patients in Thailand are able to obtain iv rtPA. Although endovascular interventional therapy has not yet been approved as standard treatment in acute ischemic stroke, it is the one of the potentially effective treatment options. There are several reliable methods of endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke patients. Endovascular interventional therapy has rarely been done in Thailand. We report seven patients with successful recanalization after endovascular treatment in acute large vessel stroke from a single stroke center in Thailand. Patient screening and selection with multimodal imaging protocol and multimodality methods of endovascular interventional therapy are described.展开更多
目的对比分析机械取栓与动脉溶栓血管再通方法对于治疗急性脑动脉闭塞的有效性及安全性。方法回顾比较分析2005年5月至2014年5月期间行动脉溶栓及机械取栓患者,比较其发病到入院时间、入院到穿刺时间以及穿刺到获得再通时间、血管再通率...目的对比分析机械取栓与动脉溶栓血管再通方法对于治疗急性脑动脉闭塞的有效性及安全性。方法回顾比较分析2005年5月至2014年5月期间行动脉溶栓及机械取栓患者,比较其发病到入院时间、入院到穿刺时间以及穿刺到获得再通时间、血管再通率TICI评分、患者术前及出院时NIHSS评分变化、90d时MRS评分、颅内出血发生率、死亡率。结果机械取栓组102例,动脉溶栓组50例,两组在发病入院时间(300 min vs.120 min,Z=-5.704,P=0.000),穿刺到再通时间(30 min vs.65 min,Z=-5.011,P=0.001)存在统计学差异,机械取栓组明显优于动脉溶栓组。两组在血管再通率(91.2%vs.60.0%,P=0.01)、总出血率(21.7%vs.36.0%,P=0.046)、死亡率(16.6%vs.26.0%,P=0.043)比较存在统计学差异,机械取栓组明显优于动脉溶栓组。两组90d时症状性出血率(12%vs.16%,P=0.055)、NIHSS评分变化(3 vs.4,Z=-0.236,P=0.823)、90d时良好预后率(48.2%vs.46.0%,P=0.823)比较无统计学差异。机械取栓组的支架放置率高于动脉溶栓组(22.5%vs.8.0%,P=0.018)。两组责任血管分层比较:机械取栓组颈内动脉(81.8%vs.55.6%,P=0.048)、基底动脉(93.1%vs.55.6%,P=0.032)、大脑中动脉(97.5%vs.60%,P=0.026)的血管再通率明显高于动脉溶栓组,机械取栓组颈内动脉(13.8%vs.33.3%,P=0.001)、基底动脉(13.8%vs.22.2%,P=0.011)的症状性出血率明显低于动脉溶栓组。机械取栓组大脑中动脉死亡率显著低于动脉溶栓组(2.5%vs.20.0%,P=0.000)。机械取栓组基底动脉良好预后率明显高于动脉溶栓组(41.3%vs.22.2%,P﹤0.01)。结论对于急性脑动脉闭塞患者的血管内治疗,机械取栓相比动脉溶栓有更宽的时间窗,更高的再通率和更好的预后。展开更多
目的观察动静脉联合溶栓与机械取栓治疗急性脑梗死患者的临床疗效及预后。方法选择2012年6月—2014年6月诊断为急性脑梗死颅内血管狭窄或闭塞患者70例为研究对象,根据溶栓方法不同分为动静脉联合溶栓组(对照组)35例,机械取栓组(观察组)3...目的观察动静脉联合溶栓与机械取栓治疗急性脑梗死患者的临床疗效及预后。方法选择2012年6月—2014年6月诊断为急性脑梗死颅内血管狭窄或闭塞患者70例为研究对象,根据溶栓方法不同分为动静脉联合溶栓组(对照组)35例,机械取栓组(观察组)35例。治疗前后分别对患者行美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分、临床有效性、近期疗效与远期预后观察。结果观察组临床疗效明显优于对照组(97.14%vs.80.0%,x^2=5.081,P<0.05)。观察组治疗后3 d及14 d NIHSS评分较治疗前明显降低(t=5.667,5.850,P<0.05)。对照组治疗后3 d与治疗前NIHSS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(t=1.683,P>0.05),治疗后14 d NIHSS评分较治疗前明显降低(t=8.326,P<0.05);2组治疗后3 d比较差异有统计学意义(t=3.767,P<0.05),治疗后观察组TIMI血流≥2级明显多于对照组,血管急性再闭塞率明显少于对照组(x^2=17.481、10.403,P<0.01)。治疗后2组病变残余狭窄率、24 h内症状性颅内出血发生率及3个月病死率比较差异无统计学意义(x^2=3.188、0.159、0.348,P>0.05)。结论机械取栓治疗急性脑梗死患者效果优于动静脉联合溶栓,对神经功能改善时间较早,且其远期临床预后较好。展开更多
基金Supported by The National Research University Project of Thailand Office of Higher Education Commission,Thammasat University,Thailand
文摘Stroke is an important cause of death and disability in adults. However, effective treatments for patients with acute ischemic stroke are limited. Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator(iv rtPA) within 4.5 h after onset has been approved as a standard treatment for patients with acute ischemic stroke. However, due to time constraints, less than one percent of acute ischemic stroke patients in Thailand are able to obtain iv rtPA. Although endovascular interventional therapy has not yet been approved as standard treatment in acute ischemic stroke, it is the one of the potentially effective treatment options. There are several reliable methods of endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke patients. Endovascular interventional therapy has rarely been done in Thailand. We report seven patients with successful recanalization after endovascular treatment in acute large vessel stroke from a single stroke center in Thailand. Patient screening and selection with multimodal imaging protocol and multimodality methods of endovascular interventional therapy are described.
文摘目的对比分析机械取栓与动脉溶栓血管再通方法对于治疗急性脑动脉闭塞的有效性及安全性。方法回顾比较分析2005年5月至2014年5月期间行动脉溶栓及机械取栓患者,比较其发病到入院时间、入院到穿刺时间以及穿刺到获得再通时间、血管再通率TICI评分、患者术前及出院时NIHSS评分变化、90d时MRS评分、颅内出血发生率、死亡率。结果机械取栓组102例,动脉溶栓组50例,两组在发病入院时间(300 min vs.120 min,Z=-5.704,P=0.000),穿刺到再通时间(30 min vs.65 min,Z=-5.011,P=0.001)存在统计学差异,机械取栓组明显优于动脉溶栓组。两组在血管再通率(91.2%vs.60.0%,P=0.01)、总出血率(21.7%vs.36.0%,P=0.046)、死亡率(16.6%vs.26.0%,P=0.043)比较存在统计学差异,机械取栓组明显优于动脉溶栓组。两组90d时症状性出血率(12%vs.16%,P=0.055)、NIHSS评分变化(3 vs.4,Z=-0.236,P=0.823)、90d时良好预后率(48.2%vs.46.0%,P=0.823)比较无统计学差异。机械取栓组的支架放置率高于动脉溶栓组(22.5%vs.8.0%,P=0.018)。两组责任血管分层比较:机械取栓组颈内动脉(81.8%vs.55.6%,P=0.048)、基底动脉(93.1%vs.55.6%,P=0.032)、大脑中动脉(97.5%vs.60%,P=0.026)的血管再通率明显高于动脉溶栓组,机械取栓组颈内动脉(13.8%vs.33.3%,P=0.001)、基底动脉(13.8%vs.22.2%,P=0.011)的症状性出血率明显低于动脉溶栓组。机械取栓组大脑中动脉死亡率显著低于动脉溶栓组(2.5%vs.20.0%,P=0.000)。机械取栓组基底动脉良好预后率明显高于动脉溶栓组(41.3%vs.22.2%,P﹤0.01)。结论对于急性脑动脉闭塞患者的血管内治疗,机械取栓相比动脉溶栓有更宽的时间窗,更高的再通率和更好的预后。
文摘目的观察动静脉联合溶栓与机械取栓治疗急性脑梗死患者的临床疗效及预后。方法选择2012年6月—2014年6月诊断为急性脑梗死颅内血管狭窄或闭塞患者70例为研究对象,根据溶栓方法不同分为动静脉联合溶栓组(对照组)35例,机械取栓组(观察组)35例。治疗前后分别对患者行美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分、临床有效性、近期疗效与远期预后观察。结果观察组临床疗效明显优于对照组(97.14%vs.80.0%,x^2=5.081,P<0.05)。观察组治疗后3 d及14 d NIHSS评分较治疗前明显降低(t=5.667,5.850,P<0.05)。对照组治疗后3 d与治疗前NIHSS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(t=1.683,P>0.05),治疗后14 d NIHSS评分较治疗前明显降低(t=8.326,P<0.05);2组治疗后3 d比较差异有统计学意义(t=3.767,P<0.05),治疗后观察组TIMI血流≥2级明显多于对照组,血管急性再闭塞率明显少于对照组(x^2=17.481、10.403,P<0.01)。治疗后2组病变残余狭窄率、24 h内症状性颅内出血发生率及3个月病死率比较差异无统计学意义(x^2=3.188、0.159、0.348,P>0.05)。结论机械取栓治疗急性脑梗死患者效果优于动静脉联合溶栓,对神经功能改善时间较早,且其远期临床预后较好。
