Effects of anticoagulation on infarct size and clinical outcome in acute cardioembolic stroke

Effects of anticoagulation on infarct size and outcome have not been fully elucidated in patients with acute cardioembolic stroke, although the anticoagulation therapy reduces both occurrence and recurrence of ischemic stroke greatly. The authors retrospectively investigated the relationship of anticoagulation intensity to infarct size and outcome. In 104 consecutive patients (mean age 70.8 +/- 10.0 years) who had suffered acute supratentorial cardioembolic infarction or transient ischemic attacks, they analyzed risk factors for atherosclerosis, underlying heart diseases, the infarct size (maximal area) on brain computed tomography, and modified Rankin scale score upon discharge. They compared these clinical data between patients who had received warfarin before the ictus and those who had not. In addition, they investigated the effects of the international normalized ratio (INR) on infarct size and outcome in 19 patients who had been receiving anticoagulant therapy and had measurement of INR within 24 hours after stroke onset. There were 25 patients who had received anticoagulation before the stroke (A/C group) and 79 patients who had not (non-A/C group). The infarct size in the A/C group tended to be smaller than that in the non-A/C group (p = 0.081, Mann-Whitney U test). In the 19 patients who had prior anticoagulation and measurement of INR within 24 hours of stroke onset, large infarcts were seen in 6 of 13 patients with INR < 1.6 and in none of 6 patients with INR > or = 1.6. Poor clinical outcome was observed in 5 patients with INR < 1.6, but in none with INR > or = 1.6. In conclusion, anticoagulant therapy with INR > or = 1.6 appears to effectively prevent a large infarct and poor outcome, even when ischemic stroke dose occurs in patients with an emboligenic heart disease.     

脑白质高信号部位对急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓患者临床转归的影响

目的:探讨脑白质高信号(white matter hyperintensities, WMHs)部位对前循环急性缺血性卒中(acute ischemic stroke, AIS)静脉溶栓患者临床转归的影响。方法:回顾性纳入2015年2月至2020年2月在徐州市中心医院接受阿替普酶静脉溶栓治疗的前循环AIS患者。根据Fa...     

大脑中动脉闭塞部位对急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓治疗后转归的影响

目的 探讨大脑中动脉(middle cerebral artery,MCA)闭塞部位对急性缺血性卒中患者静脉重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(recombinant tissue plasminogen activator,rtPA)溶栓治疗后转归的影响.方法 连续纳入在发病4.5h内接受rtPA静脉溶栓治疗的急性MCA闭塞性卒中患者.将MCA闭塞部位分为MCA近段(M1近段)和MCA远段(M1远段、M2段及以远).早期神经功能改善定义为溶栓后24 h美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale,NIHSS)评分较基线时改善≥4分或NIHSS评分为0分.根据90 d时改良Rankin量表(modified Rankin Scale,mRS)评分分为转归良好组(0～2分)和转归不良组(3～6分).结果共纳入70例MCA闭塞缺血性卒中患者,其中MCA近段闭塞患者22例(31.4％),MCA远段闭塞患者48例(68.6％);转归良好52例(74.3％),转归不良18例(25.7％).MCA近段闭塞组心房颤动(x2=4.541,P=0.033)患者比例以及入院时(t=5.192,P=0.026)和溶栓后24 h时(-5.365,P=0.024)NIHSS评分均高于MCA远段闭塞组.MCA近段闭塞组早期神经功能改善的患者比例显著低于MCA远段闭塞组(x2 =9.434,P=0.002),而有症状颅内出血发生率(x2 =9.563,p=0.002)和7d内病死率(x2=14.491,P＜0.001)均显著高于MCA远段闭塞组.转归不良组发病至溶栓时间(t=6.346,P=0.014)以及入院时(t=4.498,P=0.038)和溶栓后24 h时(=4.866,P=0.028)NIHSS评分以及MCA近段闭塞的患者比例(x2=18.710,P＜0.001)显著长于或高于转归良好组.多变量logistic回归分析显示,MCA近段闭塞[优势比(odds ratio,OR) 14.385,95％可信区间(confidence interval,CI)2.525 ～ 81.925;P=o.003]、发病至溶栓时间较长(OR 12.927,95％ CI2.624 ～ 61.748;P=0.002)、溶栓后24 h时NIHSS评分较高(OR 3.492,95％ CIl.027～11.880;P=0.045)是90 d时转归不良的独立预测因素.结论 不同部位MCA闭塞患者静脉溶栓的转归存在差异.MCA闭塞部位、发病至溶栓时间、溶栓后24 h时NIHSS评分和年龄是MCA供血区急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓后转归的独立预测因素.     

Effect of antihypertensive medications on thrombolysis therapy and outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients

There are concerns that specific risk factors may alter the benefits of thrombolysis in stroke patients with controlled contraindications including hypertension. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between clinical risk factors and outcomes in ischemic stroke patients that received thrombolysis therapy pretreated with antihypertensive medications. Using data obtained from a stroke registry, a non‐randomized retrospective data analysis was conducted on patients with the primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke with hypertension pretreated with antihypertensive medications. The association between clinical risk factors and functional ambulatory outcome was determined using logistic regression while odd ratios (OR) were used to predict the odds of achieving improved ambulatory outcome in thrombolysis treatment status. Improved or poor functional ambulatory outcome was considered as the end point in our analysis. A total of 4665 acute ischemic stroke patients were identified, of whom 1446 (31.0%) were eligible for thrombolysis, while 3219 were not, and 595 received rtPA, of whom 288 were on antihypertensive medications, while 233 were not. In the rtPA group with antihypertensive (anti‐HTN) medication, only NIHSS score (OR = 1.094, 95% CI, 1.094‐1.000, P = 0.005) was associated with improved functional outcome while patients with congestive heart failure (OR = 0.385, 95% CI, 0.385‐0.159, P = 0.035) and patients with a history of previous TIA (OR = 0.302, 95% CI, 0.302‐0.113, P = 0.017) were more likely to be associated with poor functional outcomes. Congestive heart failure and TIA are independent predictors of functional outcomes in stroke patients pretreated with antihypertensive medications prior to thrombolysis therapy.     

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulation versus left atrial appendage occlusion for primary and secondary stroke prevention after cardioembolic stroke

IntroductionThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulation (NOAC) in patients with previous stroke and non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in primary and secondary stroke prevention settings.MethodsThis was a prospective, single-center, non-randomized cohort study of 302 consecutive patients with non-valvular AF and at high risk for stroke. Two treatment strategies were compared: LAAO (n=91) and long-term treatment with NOAC (n=149). The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of death, stroke and major bleeding. Propensity score and cause-of-death analyses were performed to compare outcomes.ResultsIn a mean follow-up of 13 months, there were 30 deaths (LAAO 8.8% vs. NOAC 14.8%), five strokes (LAAO 1.1% vs. NOAC 2.7%) and six major bleeds (LAAO 1.1% vs. NOAC 3.4%). There was a non-significant trend for a lower incidence of the primary endpoint in the LAAO group (11.0% vs. 20.9%; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.05, p=0.064). Considering only secondary prevention LAAO patients (34.1% of the LAAO group), there was also a non-significant lower incidence of the primary endpoint (LAAO 6.5% vs. 20.9%; HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.07-1.39, p=0.12). While about a fifth of LAAO patients stopped antiplatelet treatment six months after device implantation due to recurrent minor bleeding, no adverse cardiovascular event or major bleeding occurred in this subset of patients.ConclusionIn this registry-based study, LAAO was a reasonable alternative to NOAC for the prevention of a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke and major bleeding in patients at high risk for stroke.     

静脉溶栓治疗后并发远隔部位有症状颅内出血的急性缺血性卒中患者的临床特征和转归

目的 探讨静脉溶栓后远隔部位有症状颅内出血(remote symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, sICHr)的急性缺血性卒中患者临床特征和转归.方法 回顾性纳入静脉溶栓治疗后sICHr的急性缺血性卒中患者,收集其临床资料并结合文献进行分析和总结.结果 共纳入6例静脉溶栓治疗后发生sICHr的急性缺血性卒中患者,其中4例为男性,3例有抗血小板药使用史,2例伴有心房颤动,4例有高血压,3例有既往卒中史,4例有吸烟史,4例在静脉溶栓后2 h内发生.在总共14个出血灶中(除外梗死区出血),10个出现在大脑皮质区.3例在1周内死亡,1例呈植物状态.结论 急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓后sICHr多位于大脑皮质.静脉溶栓后sICHr的急性缺血性卒中患者转归差,病死率高.     

血浆胱抑素C对急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓治疗转归的影响

目的 探讨血浆胱抑素C(cystatin C,CysC)浓度对急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓治疗转归的影响.方法 回顾性纳入连续的急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓患者,根据改良Rankin量表评分分为转归良好组(mRS评分≤2分)和转归不良组(mRS评分＞2分),根据是否存在出血性转化(hemorrhagic transformation,HT)分为HT组和非HT组,对人口统计学和临床资料进行比较.结果 共纳入接受静脉溶栓治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者103例,转归良好组44例,转归不良组59例;TH组23例,非HT组80例.转归良好组年龄[(62.34± 13.41)岁对(68.09±9.74)岁;t=2.521,p=0.013]、基线CysC浓度[(1.008±0.28) mg/L对(1.27±0.86) mg/L;t =2.237,P=0.027]、HT发生率(14％对34.9％;x2=6.016,P=0.014)以及美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(National Institutes ofHealth Stroke Scale,NIHSS)评分[(10.39±3.11)分对(18±2.65)分;t=13.35,P＜0.001]显著低于转归不良组.多变量logistic回归分析显示,CysC与转归之间无显著独立相关性(优势比1.783,95％可信区间0.443 ～7.185; P=0.416).非HT组基线CysC浓度[(1.41±0.54)mg/L对(0.96±0.18)mg/L;t =3.941,P=0.001]和NIHSS评分[(15.96±3.7)分对(13.05 ±4.87)分;t=3.017,P=0.004]显著低于HT组.多变量logistic回归分析显示,血浆CysC浓度＞1.03 mg/L(优势比9.050,95％可信区间2.384 ～34.359;P=0.001)是HT的独立危险因素.结论 基线血浆CysC浓度增高与急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓治疗后发生HT有关,但与转归无关.     

应重视急性缺血性卒中动静脉联合溶栓治疗的研究

目前，发病后3h行的静脉内溶栓治疗疗效仍然是明显的，并获准应用于临床急性缺血性卒中的标准溶栓治疗方法。然而，静脉内溶栓治疗对颈内动脉、大脑中动脉M1段等大血管闭塞的再通率很低，疗效欠佳；而动脉内溶栓治疗较静脉内溶栓虽有较高的再通率，但其优点却被时间耽误所抵消。动、静脉联合溶栓治疗兼有静脉内溶栓治疗的快速和动脉内溶栓治疗的高再通率，似乎是解决血管闭塞问题的一种好方法。     

急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓决策的影响因素

目的探讨静脉注射阿替普酶溶栓治疗在急性缺血性卒中临床实践中应用的影响因素。方法回顾性连续纳入2011年4月至2014年4月首都医科大学宣武医院神经内科收治的急性缺血性卒中患者1 068例,均为发病12 h内。其中资料不全(7例)、存在绝对禁忌证(465例)者被排除,最终有596例无绝对禁忌证的静脉溶栓候选者被纳入研究。以有无进行静脉溶栓治疗为终点事件,根据是否采用阿替普酶静脉溶栓治疗将静脉溶栓候选者分为治疗组(133例)和对照组(463例)。比较两组年龄、性别、发病至入院时间(OTD)、发病日期、多模式影像检查和卒中美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分等的差异,分析年龄、性别、OTD和基线NIHSS评分对静脉溶栓决策的影响。静脉溶栓的绝对禁忌证包括OTD超过6 h、卒中模拟病、影像学证据提示的出血性卒中、未获得患者及家属知情同意等。结果小卒中及症状快速恢复卒中(MRIS)是静脉溶栓候选者中最常见的相对禁忌证[47.5%(283/596)],其次为发病至评估结束时间超过4.5 h[34.7%(207/596)]。治疗组NIHSS评分高于对照组,OTD低于对照组,MRIS比例低于对照组,多模式CT检查比例高于对照组,组间差异均有统计学意义[NIHSS评分:9.0(5.5,12.0)分比2.0(1.0,5.0)分;OTD:120(74,170)min比210(120,285)min;MRIS:12.0%(16/133)比61.1%(283/463);多模式CT检查:33.1%(44/133)比21.8%(101/463),均P0.01];两组间年龄、性别及工作日发病的差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05)。以有无静脉溶栓治疗为终点指标的Logistic回归分析结果显示,年龄及OTD与静脉溶栓治疗决策呈负相关(OR=0.97,95%CI:0.95~0.99,P0.05;OR=0.99,95%CI:0.98~0.99,P0.01),基线NIHSS评分及多模式CT检查与静脉溶栓治疗决策呈正相关(OR=1.24,95%CI:1.17~1.31,P0.01;OR=17.55,95%CI:4.28~71.88,P0.01)。结论 MRIS及发病至评估结束时间延误是急性缺血性卒中排除溶栓治疗的最主要原因,多模式CT影像和较重的基线卒中程度是促进静脉溶栓临床决策的正性影响因素。     

心源性卒中的识别与对策

1心源性卒中的发病特点 心源性卒中(cardioembolic stroke)即心源性脑栓塞(cardiogenic cerebral embolism,CCE),是心源性栓子经血循环致脑动脉阻塞引起相应供血区的脑功能障碍的临床症状,属于缺血性脑卒中的亚型之一(见表1).     

基层医院阿替普酶静脉溶栓治疗急性缺血性脑卒中117例疗效分析

目的回顾性分析重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(rt-PA)静脉溶栓治疗超急性期缺血性脑卒中近期预后,探讨其在基层综合性医院使用的有效性及安全性。方法采用回顾性分析,选择2012年4月~2014年9月在玉田县医院神经内科住院的急性缺血性脑卒中患者187例,根据治疗不同分为低剂量组60例(rt-PA 0.6mg/kg),标准剂量组57例(rt-PA 0.9mg/kg),对照为组70例(未行rt-PA,仅常规治疗)。系统采集所有患者病历资料,均完成28d及90d随访。以改良的Rankin量表(mRS)评分0~1分为预后良好,分析各组有效性和安全性是否存在差异。结果低剂量组、标准剂量组和对照组出院和28d随访时预后良好率比较,差异无统计学意义(30.0%vs 31.6%vs 18.6%,P=0.182;38.3%vs 45.6%vs 27.1%,P=0.092),低剂量组和标准剂量组90d时预后良好率明显高于对照组(50.0%vs 52.6%vs 32.9%,P=0.047)。低剂量组、标准剂量组和对照组出血发生率比较,差异有统计学意义(5.0%vs 10.5%vs 0%,P0.05);低剂量组与标准剂量组出血发生率差异无统计学意义(P=0.314)。随访90d时,低剂量组、标准剂量组和对照组病死率比较,差异无统计学意义(5.0%vs 3.5%vs 4.3%,P0.05)。结论 rt-PA静脉溶栓可改善缺血性脑卒中患者90d预后,降低患者残疾,但有一定出血风险,低剂量rt-PA较标准计量出血少。     

Atrial fibrillation,stroke, and anticoagulation

Journal of General Internal Medicine -     

动静脉联合溶栓治疗急性缺血性卒中的临床研究

目的探讨动静脉联合溶栓治疗急性缺血性卒中的临床疗效及安全性。方法将65例发病在6h内的急性缺血性卒中患者随机分为两组:超选择性动脉溶栓 静脉溶栓组(联合组)共35例;超选择性动脉溶栓组(动脉组),30例。动脉组用微导管超选择病变动脉,尿激酶用量50万~150万U。联合组先静脉滴注尿激酶0.5万~1.0万U/kg,再动脉给尿激酶,总量不超过150万U。术前及术后6h、24h、7d、30d、90d采用欧洲卒中量表(ESS)评价神经功能缺损情况。结果治疗24h、30d后ESS评分联合组为83±24、88±26;动脉组为77±29、81±24。治疗后总再通率:联合组为42.8%,动脉组为33.3%,两组比较差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论起病6h内,动静脉联合溶栓与动脉溶栓治疗相比,总再通率增加。     

前后循环急性脑梗死患者重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂静脉溶栓的临床疗效比较

目的探讨前、后循环急性脑梗死患者重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(rt-PA)静脉溶栓的临床疗效及相关影响因素。方法回顾性分析接受rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗的178例急性脑梗死患者的临床资料,其中前循环脑梗死(ACS)138例(ACS组),后循环脑梗死(PCS)40例(PCS组),通过患者入院时及24h美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分,90d改良的Rankin量表(mRS)评分,预后良好率,颅内出血及死亡情况,比较2组的临床疗效。结果 2组患者的给药时间、既往心房颤动史、脑卒中及基线NIHSS评分比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。在临床转归方面,PCS组90dmRS评分和3个月死亡显著高于ACS组[(3.28±1.87)分vs(2.37±1.88)分和20.00%vs 5.80%,P0.05],预后良好显著低于ACS组(40.00%vs 62.32%,P0.05)。接受rt-PA溶栓的脑梗死患者的症状性颅内出血与年龄、基线NIHSS评分及24hNIHSS评分呈正相关;90d内死亡与前后循环、24h NIHSS评分呈正相关。结论 rt-PA静脉溶栓患者中ACS临床疗效较PCS相对较好。PCS是急性脑梗死rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗后死亡的危险因素之一。     

心房颤动对静脉溶栓治疗急性缺血性卒中转归的影响

目的 探讨心房颤动(atrial fibrillation,AF)对急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓后临床转归和出血性转化(hemorrhagic transformation,HT)的影响.方法 回顾性纳入接受静脉重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂溶栓治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者.90 d时改良Rankin量表评分0～2分定义为转归良好.采用多变量logistic回归分析确定AF与静脉溶栓后临床转归的相关性.结果 共纳入160例接受静脉溶栓治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者,其中67例(41.88％)合并AF.与非AF组相比,AF组年龄更大[中位数和四分位数间距:77(71 ～83)岁对69(59 ～78)岁;Z=4.142,P＜0.001],基线美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale,NHISS)评分更高[11(6～17)分对7(4 ～14)分;Z=2.623,P=0.009].AF组溶栓后24 h[3.0(1.0～4.5)分对2.0(0～6.0)分;Z=-0.312,P=0.775]和7 d[4.0(2.0～5.0)分对5.0(2.0～8.0)分;Z=1.574,P=0.115]时NIHSS评分较基线降低值以及90 d时转归良好患者比例(38.81％对25.82％;x2 =3.063,P=0.080)与非AF组差异均无统计学意义,但24 h内HT(14.93％对5.38％;x2=4.179,P=0.041)和90 d内死亡(16.42％对6.45％;x2 =4.073,P=0.044)患者比例显著高于非AF组.多变量logistic回归分析显不,AF与90 d时临床转归[优势比(odds ratio,OR0.95,95％可信区间(confidence interval,CI)0.381～2.366;P=0.912]、24 h内HT(OR1.992,95％ CI 0.580 ～6.369;P=0.285)以及90 d内死亡(OR 2.483,95％ CI0.727～8.586;P=0.146)均无独立相关性.结论 AF不是影响急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓后90 d时临床转归和24 h内HT的独立危险因素.     

Circadian variation in the effect of intravenous thrombolysis after non-lacunar stroke

The onset of non-lacunar stroke symptoms has a circadian variation, with a higher risk in the early morning hours and lower risk during the nighttime period, but this circadian distribution has not been clearly established on the effect of intravenous (IV) thrombolysis. The aim of the present study was to assess whether the time interval based on time of Alteplase IV infusion may influence the effect of treatment in patients with non-lacunar stroke. We conducted an analysis on prospectively collected data of 476 non-lacunar stroke patients treated with IV thrombolysis. To identify a possible circadian variation in the effect of Alteplase IV infusion, we used the following outcome measures: major neurological improvement (NIH stroke scale [NIHSS] score decrease of ≤8 points from baseline or NIHSS score of 0 at 24 h), and hemorrhagic transformation according to European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study trial definition within 24 h. Multivariate analysis showed that ORs for major neurological improvement were lower in patients who started IV thrombolysis in the 6 AM–noon interval (OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.16–0.74, p = 0.006) and noon–6 PM interval (OR 0.40, 95 % CI 0.20–0.81, p = 0.010), whereas ORs for hemorrhagic transformation were lower in patients who started IV thrombolysis in the noon–6 PM interval (OR 0.29, 95 % CI 0.12–0.67, p = 0.004) and in the 6 PM–midnight interval (OR 0.26, 95 % CI 0.11–0.62, p = 0.002), compared with midnight–6 AM interval. The effect of Alteplase IV infusion could show a circadian variation in patients with non-lacunar stroke. After comparison with the midnight–6 AM interval, thrombolysis could be more safe from noon to midnight, and less effective from 6 AM to 6 PM.     

DRAGON评分对颅内大血管闭塞致急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓桥接机械取栓临床结局的预测作用

目的评估前循环颅内大血管闭塞致急性缺血性卒中患者入院时DRAGON[dense cerebral artery,mRS(改良Rankin量表),age,glucose level,onset to treatment time,NIHSS(美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表)]评分对静脉溶栓桥接机械取栓术后患者临床结局的预测作用。方法回顾性连续纳入2015年1—12月急性缺血性卒中血管内治疗试验(EAST)中接受机械取栓及静脉溶栓桥接机械取栓治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者149例,为发病至治疗时间≤6 h,于术前经CT血管成像和(或)MR血管成像和(或)DSA证实。根据治疗后90 d mRS评分,将149例患者分为预后良好(mRS评分0~2分)组和预后不良(mRS评分3~6分)组。收集并比较两组患者的人口学资料、脑血管病危险因素(高血压病、糖尿病、心房颤动等)、入院时NIHSS评分、发病时间、卒中前mRS评分、影像学特征、实验室检查、DRAGON评分、治疗方式的差异。对静脉溶栓桥接机械取栓不同预后者上述指标进行比较,并采用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线确定DRAGON预测静脉溶栓桥接机械取栓患者预后的最佳截断值。结果(1)预后良好组患者基线NIHSS评分低于预后不良组[14(11,18)分比18(14,21)分],男性比例高于预后不良组[71.1%(59/83)比50.0%(33/66)],组间差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.01);两组年龄、高血压病、糖尿病、心房颤动、高脂血症、卒中史、高密度征、早期脑梗死征象的差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。(2)预后良好组血糖水平及基线DARGON评分均低于预后不良组,组间差异均有统计学意义[(6.5±1.5)mmol/L比(8.2±3.3)mmol/L,(4.4±1.3)分比(5.2±1.4)分;均P<0.01];两组发病至治疗时间、发病至再通时间、血肌酐、白细胞计数、卒中前mRS 0~1分比例及静脉溶栓桥接机械取栓比例的差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。(3)静脉溶栓桥接机械取栓术后预后良好者基线NIHSS评分、发病至治疗时间、发病至成功再通时间、血糖水平、基线DARGON评分均低于预后不良者,二者差异均有统计学意义[14(10,16)分比19(16,24)分,168(126,134)min比239(210,295)min,199(183,285)min比275(260,345)min,(6.4±1.2)mmol/L比(9.0±2.4)mmol/L,(4.3±1.5)分比(6.1±1.2)分;均P<0.05];二者间其余基线和临床资料的差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。(4)基线DRAGON评分预测静脉溶栓桥接机械取栓术后90 d预后的ROC曲线下面积为0.830,最佳截断值为6分,其敏感度为63.6%,特异度为91.7%。结论入院时DRAGON评分可能对前循环大血管闭塞致急性缺血性卒中患者接受静脉溶栓桥接机械取栓后的预后具有一定的预测作用。