急性缺血性卒中血管内治疗——中美指南解读

2013年各国指南明确指出在时间窗内进行静脉溶栓治疗是唯一被证实可以降低缺血性脑卒中致残率的有效方法,但中美2015年中美急性缺血性卒中血管内治疗指南存在一定差异,汇总如下。血管内治疗是否可以替代静脉溶栓？2015年中国指南推荐：机械取栓推荐使用机械取栓治疗发病6 h内的急性前循环大血管闭塞卒中患者,发病4.5 h内者则可在足量静脉溶栓基础上进行（Ⅰ级推荐,A级证据）;     

伴心房颤动的急性缺血性卒中的治疗

心房颤动是缺血性卒中的一种重要病因.研究表明,与无心房颤动者相比,伴有心房颤动的卒中患者会出现更严重的神经功能缺损和更高的病死率.此外,心房颤动还是静脉溶栓后血管未能再通的独立危险因素,与转归不良相关.机械取栓治疗为伴有心房颤动的急性缺血性卒中患者提供了新的治疗方案.文章就合并心房颤动的急性缺血性卒中患者的静脉溶栓和机械取栓治疗进行了综述.     

血管内取栓装置在缺血性卒中急性期治疗中的问题和前景

血管内机械取栓治疗急性缺血性卒中具有血管再通率高,相对于溶栓治疗出血转化少的优势,尤其对于溶栓治疗效果较差的颅内大血管栓塞,如颈内动脉和大脑中动脉等的闭塞,机械取栓是开通血管有效的补充技术,已成为目前治疗急性缺血性卒中的重要选择和研究热点。但取栓装置开通闭塞血管、恢复脑组织供血后,能否最终改善患者的临床结局,尚存在争议。     

颅内动脉粥样硬化性狭窄导致的急性大血管闭塞性缺血性卒中血管内治疗进展

急性大血管闭塞性缺血性卒中(AIS-LVO)的早期血管内治疗,在过去几年取得了较大的发展.静脉溶栓和机械取栓成为急性缺血性卒中治疗的标准方案.对于颅内动脉粥样硬化性狭窄(ICAS)导致的AIS-LVO,多见于亚洲人群,目前尚无大型随机对照研究证实血管内治疗方案的有效性.由于其发病机制不同,单纯机械取栓效果不如心源性栓塞...     

静脉溶栓桥接治疗急性缺血性卒中

静脉溶栓是治疗急性缺血性卒中的首选方法,但在大血管闭塞性卒中患者中的血管再通率较低.以血管内机械血栓切除术为代表的血管内治疗能有效使缺血性卒中患者闭塞血管再通和改善转归.文章对静脉溶栓桥接治疗的现状和发展方向进行了综述.     

从直接血管内取栓与标准静脉溶栓桥接血管内取栓治疗发病4.5 h内卒中的随机对照研究(DIRECT-SAFE)看桥接治疗的未来

桥接治疗是指在静脉溶栓基础上进行动脉血管内介入治疗。目前,已完成了6项随机对照研究及多项真实世界研究来对比直接血管内取栓与静脉溶栓桥接血管内取栓治疗急性卒中患者的疗效。该文对上述研究进行总结,并着重分析直接血管内取栓与标准静脉溶栓桥接血管内取栓治疗发病4.5 h内卒中的随机对照研究(DIRECT-SAFE)的结果来探讨桥接治疗的未来,以期为临床实践提供参考。     

急性缺血性脑卒中桥接治疗与直接血管内机械取栓的研究进展

静脉溶栓是治疗急性缺血性脑卒中患者的重要手段,但因受限于较窄的治疗时间窗、低再通率等因素,部分患者并未获得显著的疗效。血管内机械取栓的出现不仅扩大了治疗时间窗,而且可以使患者获得更高的再通率。目前对桥接治疗(采取静脉溶栓后再进行血管内机械取栓)与直接血管内机械取栓的临床疗效及预后尚存争议,本文针对桥接治疗与直接取栓治疗的优势与局限、临床证据、随机对照试验等研究情况综述如下。     

血管内支架机械取栓术在缺血性脑卒中急性期患者中的应用效果

目的分析血管内支架机械取栓术在缺血性脑卒中急性期患者中的应用效果。方法选取2016年12月—2018年1月石家庄市第一医院收治的缺血性脑卒中急性期患者124例,采用随机数字表法分为对照组和研究组,每组62例。在常规治疗基础上,对照组患者采用静脉溶栓治疗,研究组患者采用血管内支架机械取栓术治疗。两组患者均随访3~6个月,比较两组患者溶栓/取栓前、溶栓/取栓后即刻、溶栓/取栓后10 d美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分,溶栓/取栓后即刻、溶栓/取栓后10 d及随访结束后血管再通率,随访结束后格拉斯哥预后量表(GOS)评分;并观察两组患者溶栓/取栓后10 d内不良反应/并发症发生情况。结果两组患者溶栓/取栓前NIHSS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);研究组患者溶栓/取栓后即刻、溶栓/取栓后10 d NIHSS评分低于对照组(P0.05)。研究组患者溶栓/取栓后即刻、溶栓/取栓后10 d及随访结束后血管再通率高于对照组(P0.05)。研究组患者随访结束后GOS评分低于对照组(P0.05)。研究组患者溶栓/取栓后10 d内不良反应/并发症发生率低于对照组(P0.05)。结论与静脉溶栓治疗相比,血管内支架机械取栓术能有效减轻缺血性脑卒中急性期患者神经功能损伤程度,提高血管再通率,改善患者短期预后,且安全性较高。     

缺血性卒中急性期静脉溶栓后抗血小板聚集药物使用的研究进展

正1995年,美国国立神经疾病与卒中研究所(NINDS)发表研究,认为阿替普酶静脉溶栓是缺血性脑血管病超早期的标准治疗方法~([1])。随着欧洲协作性急性卒中研究-Ⅲ和第3次国际卒中试验的公布,静脉溶栓的时间窗和年龄范围被进一步扩大,同时更加强调静脉溶栓的重要性~([2-3])。近年来,动脉内取栓取得了突破性进展,并被新版美国卒中协会卒中急性期治疗指南所推荐~([4]),但动脉内取栓是在静脉溶栓的基础上进行,且仅能在部分有条件的医疗中心完成。因此,对于大多缺血性卒中急性期患者,     

替罗非班在急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓后桥接机械取栓临床价值研究

正目前急性缺血性卒中(acute ischemic stroke,AIS)早期血管开通方法主要是药物治疗(静脉溶栓),但由于严格的时间窗限制(4.5 h),如合并大动脉闭塞再通率更低(13%~18%)~([1]),能够从此项治疗中获益的患者不到3%,治疗效果并不令人满意。近年来一些新的血管内治疗方法 (动脉溶栓、支架机械取栓、血管内支架成形术)显著提高了闭塞血管     

Fibrinolytic therapy in acute stroke

Acute ischemic stroke is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Europe, North America, and Asia. Its treatment has completely changed over the past decade with different interventional approaches, such as intravenous trials, intra-arterial trials, combined intravenous/intra-arterial trials, and newer devices to mechanically remove the clot from intracranial arteries. Intravenous thrombolysis with tissue plaminogen activator (tPA) within 4.5 hours of symptoms onset significantly improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Pharmacological intra-arterial thrombolysis has been shown effective until 6 hours after middle cerebral artery occlusion and offers a higher rate of recanalization compared with intravenous thrombolysis, whereas combined intravenous/ intra-arterial thrombolysis seems to be as safe as isolated intravenous thrombolysis. The more recent advances in reperfusion therapies have been done in mechanical embolus disruption or removal. Merci Retriever and Penumbra System have been approved for clot removal in brain arteries, but not as a therapeutic modality for acute ischemic stroke since it is no clear whether mechanical thrombectomy improves clinical outcome in acute stroke. However, mechanical devices are being used in clinical practice for patients who are ineligible for tPA or who have failed to respond to intravenous tPA. We summarize the results of the major thrombolytic trials and the latest neurointerventional approaches to ischemic stroke.     

No space left for intravenous thrombolysis in acute stroke: PROS

Five recently published RCTs (MR CLEAN, EXTEND-IA, SWIFT PRIME, REVASCAT and ESCAPE) employing mechanical thrombectomy with modern stent retriever devices clearly demonstrated the superiority of endovascular treatment compared to thrombolysis alone, which is now considered standard first-line therapy for selected patients with acute severe ischemic stroke and large vessel in the anterior circulation. RCT results led to recommendations outlined in “Mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke by ESO-Karolinska Stroke Update 2014/2015, supported by ESO, ESMINT, ESNR and EAN”. Moreover, endovascular procedures in the 5 RCTs to date were performed at high-volume referral centers with, in some trials, rigid requirements for the interventionalist to participate, which may have contributed substantially to the excellent results, supporting the concept of centralization of intra-arterial thrombolysis resources and expertise. Therefore, patients with suspected large-artery occlusion and deemed candidates for thrombectomy, should be treated at a Comprehensive Stroke Centre with 24/7 endovascular treatment services. There seems to be limited space left for intravenous thrombolysis alone in acute stroke patients with large-vessel occlusions as thrombectomy plus thrombolysis continues to be reported as being superior with regard to outcome.     

Acute myocardial infarction and acute stroke: What are the differences? Focus on reperfusion therapy

This review compares acute myocardial infarction and acute stroke— their similarities and differences. The focus is given on reperfusion therapy: pharmacologic, mechanical or combined. The key trials and metaanalyses are described.The published data on iv. thrombolysis show, that even among a subgroup of patients treated within 90 min from stroke onset the trend to lower mortality is not significant and in all other subgroups (i.e. treated after >90 min) there is a trend towards increased mortality with thrombolytic treatment.The data on combined therapy demonstrate, that there is no benefit from facilitated intervention (iv. thrombolysis followed by ia. thrombolysis ± catheter intervention) over iv. thrombolysis alone in acute stroke. This is very similar to the situation in acute myocardial infarction 25 years ago (intracoronary thrombolysis was not superior to intravenous thrombolysis) or more recently (facilitated PCI was not shown to be superior in several trials).The latest generation of stent retrievers is able to recanalize >70% of occluded intracranial arteries—approximately twice more compared to thrombolysis. However, it is not yet known whether this translates to better clinical outcomes. The sufficient data on clinical outcomes after primary catheter-based thrombectomy (without thrombolysis) are still missing and trials comparing iv. thrombolysis versus primary catheter-based thrombectomy are urgently needed.The future trials in acute stroke may follow the way paved by acute myocardial infarction trials. If such trials would demonstrate superiority of catheter-based thrombectomy, we can face in future similar revolution in acute stroke treatment as we have been facing in acute MI treatment in the past years.     

No space left for intravenous thrombolysis in acute stroke: CONS

Recent successful clinical trials of endovascular thrombectomy for large artery ischaemic stroke have established the value of this treatment modality as an adjunct to intravenous thrombolysis, not as an alternative: thrombectomy delivery was undertaken in the context of highly efficient networks for acute thrombolysis delivery and the great majority of patients received IV thrombolytic drug treatment. Even for the minority of acute stroke patients for whom thrombectomy is potentially relevant, access will be limited by geography and service infrastructure. Developments in intravenous thrombolysis in the near future will likely produce safer and more effective intravenous treatments. Intravenous thrombolysis will remain the first line of treatment for the great majority of acute stroke patients.     

Acute Stroke Intervention

Ischemic strokes will make up most (>80%) of the three-quarters of a million strokes that will occur in Americans this year. Reperfusion therapy is the fundamental strategy for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Reperfusion therapy may be accomplished noninvasively (intravenous thrombolysis) or invasively with catheter-based treatments (intra-arterial thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or angioplasty). Currently, a large majority of patients with acute ischemic stroke do not receive any form of reperfusion therapy owing to their delayed presentation (>3 hours) and lack of skilled man power for on-demand endovascular treatment. Paradoxically, improved success rates for reperfusion have been reported with the newer thrombectomy catheters, called “stentreivers.” An option for broadening access for patients who need endovascular therapy would be to use interventional cardiologists with carotid stent experience who can help to provide 24×7×365 coverage.     

急性缺血性卒中机械取栓治疗的现状

在出现不可逆性神经细胞损伤之前迅速安全地再通血管、恢复血流以挽救缺血半暗带组织,是急性缺血性卒中（acute ischemic stroke, AIS ）的主要治疗目标。目前,在AIS早期开通血管的方法主要是静脉溶栓,但由于其治疗时间窗短、血管再通率低、出血并发症发生率高等原因,效果常不令人满意。近年来,随着机械取栓装置的研发及介入技术的发展,使得AIS的治疗时间窗显著延长,血管开通率显著提高,临床转归显著改善,机械取栓治疗已显示出良好的应用前景。     

Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke

The treatment of acute ischemic stroke includes both intravenous (IV) thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy. Important advances regarding both treatment modalities have occurred recently that all physicians who see patients at risk for or who have had a stroke should be aware of. This review will focus on recent clinical trials of IV thrombolysis both positive and negative. Additionally, the results of a large number of early and late time window thrombectomy trials will be presented that demonstrate the remarkable efficacy of this treatment for appropriately selected patients.     

动脉溶栓和动静脉联合溶栓及机械取栓治疗急性脑梗死的比较研究

目的评价动脉溶栓、动静脉联合溶栓和单纯机械取栓治疗急性脑梗死的疗效及安全性。方法选择急性脑梗死颅内血管狭窄或闭塞患者61例,根据不同溶栓方法分动脉溶栓组25例,动静脉联合溶栓组(联合溶栓组)17例,单纯机械取栓组(机械取栓组)19例。分别对治疗前后患者的美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分、治疗的有效性、近期与远期疗效进行分析。结果与治疗前比较,动脉溶栓组、联合溶栓组治疗后2周NIHSS评分明显降低(P<0.05,P<0.01),机械取栓组治疗后3d、2周NIHSS评分明显降低(P<0.05,P<0.01)。动脉溶栓组残余狭窄率≤30%发生率、急性血管再闭塞率和病死率分别为16.0%、52.0%和12.0%,联合溶栓组分别为11.8%、52.9%和0,机械取栓组分别为47.4%、0和10.5%。3组残余狭窄率≤30%发生率、急性血管再闭塞率比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05,P<0.01)。结论不论采用动脉溶栓、动静脉联合溶栓还是机械取栓方法,均可使患者神经功能改善,对近期临床预后的改善有相近效果。采用机械取栓方法对神经功能改善时间较早、溶栓效果、安全性及远期临床预后较好。