急性大血管闭塞性卒中单纯取栓和桥接治疗的疗效观察

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-6233.2018.12.035

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (2)

全文: PDF (1353 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要 目的: 探讨急性大血管闭塞性卒中单纯机械取栓与静脉溶栓桥接动脉内取栓的疗效对比。方法: 收集2014年8月至2018年5月80例前循环大动脉闭塞卒中患者,按治疗方法不同分为桥接治疗组和单纯机械取栓组,比较两组患者治疗前、治疗后24h、治疗后2周的NIHSS评分、治疗后3个月的mRS评分、aICH发生率、sICH发生率,死亡率。结果: 组内比较,对比治疗前,两组患者的NIHSS评分均明显改善(P<0.01):组间比较,两组患者经治疗24h及治疗后2周的NIHSS评分无统计学差异(P>0.05);两组患者的aICH、sICH的发生率无统计学差异(P>0.05);治疗后3个月的死亡率、生存者mRS评分(0~1)及mRS评分(0~2)区间人数无统计学差异(P>0.05);桥接组与单纯组入院至影像检查时间无统计学差异(P>0.05);单纯组较桥接组在入院至治疗及发病至再通时间方面均明显少于桥接组,存在显著差异(P<0.01)。结论: 在急性大血管闭塞卒中治疗中,桥接治疗与单纯机械取栓均具有较好的血管再通疗效,桥接治疗对比单纯机械取栓在预后、死亡率、颅内出血并发症发生率、生存质量上无明显差异,单纯机械取栓相比较具有较短的血管内治疗启动时间,能在更短的时间窗内完成血管内治疗,但仍需要进一步的随即临床试验比较二者的收益与风险。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	唐思治
	彭子娟

关键词 ：大动脉闭塞, 单纯机械取栓术, 静脉溶栓, 桥接治疗, 血管内治疗

Abstract：Objective: To compare the efficacy of simple mechanical thrombectomy and intravenous thrombolysis in the treatment of acute macrovascular occlusive stroke. Methods: 80 patients with anterior circulation aortic occlusion stroke were admitted to our hospital from August 2014 to May 2018. They were divided into a bridging treatment group and a simple mechanical thrombectomy group according to different treatment methods. The two groups were compared before treatment and 24 hours after treatment. NIHSS score at 2 weeks after treatment, mRS score at 3 months after treatment, incidence of aICH, incidence of sICH, and mortality. Results: In the group, the NIHSS scores of the two groups were significantly improved before the treatment (P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the NIHSS score between the two groups after 24 hours of treatment and 2 weeks after treatment. >0.05); There was no significant difference in the incidence of aICH and sICH between the two groups (P>0.05); mortality after 3 months of treatment, survivor mRS score (0~1) and mRS score (0~2) There was no significant difference in the number of patients between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the bridging group and the simple group (P>0.05). The simple group was significantly different from the bridging group in terms of admission to treatment and onset to recanalization time. There was a significant difference (P<0.01) compared to the bridge group. Conclusion: In the treatment of acute large vessel occlusion stroke, bridging therapy and mechanical thrombectomy alone have better effect of revascularization. There was no significant difference in prognosis, mortality, incidence of complications and quality of life between bridging therapy and mechanical thrombectomy alone. Compared with mechanical thrombectomy alone, it has a shorter start-up time and can complete endovascular therapy in a shorter time window. However, further clinical trials are needed to compare the benefits and risks of both methods.

Key words： Large artery occlusion Simple mechanical thrombectomy Intravenous thrombolysis Bridging treatment Endovascular treatment

基金资助:湖南省卫生厅科研项目,(编号:B2014-1347)

引用本文:

唐思治,彭子娟. 急性大血管闭塞性卒中单纯取栓和桥接治疗的疗效观察[J]. 河北医学, 2018, 24(12): 2073-2075.
TANG Sizhi, PENG Zijuan. Efficacy of Simple Thrombectomy and Bridging in treatment of Acute Large Arterial Occlusive Stroke. HeBei Med, 2018, 24(12): 2073-2075.

链接本文:

http://www.hbyxzzs.cn/CN/10.3969/j.issn.1006-6233.2018.12.035 或 http://www.hbyxzzs.cn/CN/Y2018/V24/I12/2073

[1] Turc G,Maier B,Naggara O,et al.Clinical scales do not reliably identify acute ischemic stroke patients with large-artery occlusion[J].Stroke,2016,47(6):1466~1472.
[2] 郝云飞,陈合成,李小丽,等.rtPA静脉溶栓桥接血管内治疗急性缺血性脑卒中临床观察[J].中国实用神经疾病杂志,2018(5):475~478.
[3] 李骥,刘国荣,潘晓华.急性缺血性脑卒中机械取栓治疗的并发症分析[J].卒中与神经疾病,2017(6):566~568.
[4] 国家卫生计生委脑卒中防治工程委员会,中华医学会神经外科学分会神经介入学组,中华医学会放射学分会介入学组,等.急性大血管闭塞性缺血性卒中血管内治疗中国专家共识(2017).中华神经外科杂志,2017,33(9);869~877.
[5] Baek J H,Kim B M,Kim D J,et al.Stenting as a rescue treatment after failure of mechanical thrombectomy for anterior circulation large artery occlusion[J].Stroke,2016,47(9):2360~2363.
[6] 姚天春,孟春艳,赵原正.急性脑梗死动脉取栓治疗体会[J].吉林医药学院学报,2018(3):187~188.
[7] 姚丹,包元飞,朱武生.机械取栓治疗急性脑梗死的现状和展望[J].中国脑血管病杂志,2013(12):659~662.
[8] 李克,王铭义,刘勇建,等.机械性取栓、药物溶栓及支架技术联合治疗急性颅内血管闭塞的疗效分析[J].大连医科大学学报,2017(4):383~386.
[9] 周腾飞,朱良付,李天晓,等.机械取栓和支架植入治疗动脉粥样硬化性颅内大血管闭塞疗效对比研究[J].中国卒中杂志,2017(6):501~505.
[10] Olivato S,Nizzoli S,Cavazzuti M,et al.E-NIHSS:an expanded national institutes of health stroke scale weighted for anterior and posterior circulation strokes[J].Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis,2016,25(12):2953~2957.
[11] Shin D I,Lee H S,Baek S H,et al.Noninvasive qureshi grading scheme predicts 90-day mRS in patients with acute ischemic stroke[J].Neuroimaging,2015,25(5):761~765.