2024
Intravenous Thrombolysis in Posterior versus Anterior Circulation Stroke: Clinical Outcome Differs Only in Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion
HALUSKOVA, Simona, Roman HERZIG, Robert MIKULÍK, Silvie BELASKOVA, Martin REISER et. al.Základní údaje
Originální název
Intravenous Thrombolysis in Posterior versus Anterior Circulation Stroke: Clinical Outcome Differs Only in Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion
Autoři
HALUSKOVA, Simona, Roman HERZIG, Robert MIKULÍK (203 Česká republika, garant, domácí), Silvie BELASKOVA, Martin REISER, Lubomir JURAK, Daniel VACLAVIK, Michal BAR, Lukas KLECKA, Tomas REPIK, Vladimir SIGUT, Ales TOMEK, David HLINOVSKY, Daniel SANAK, Oldrich VYSATA a Martin VALIS
Vydání
Biomedicines, Basel, MDPI, 2024, 2227-9059
Další údaje
Jazyk
angličtina
Typ výsledku
Článek v odborném periodiku
Obor
30230 Other clinical medicine subjects
Stát vydavatele
Švýcarsko
Utajení
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
Odkazy
Impakt faktor
Impact factor: 4.700 v roce 2022
Organizační jednotka
Lékařská fakulta
UT WoS
001175025400001
Klíčová slova česky
stroke; posterior circulation; anterior circulation; intravenous thrombolysis; intracerebral hemorrhage; clinical outcome
Klíčová slova anglicky
stroke; posterior circulation; anterior circulation; intravenous thrombolysis; intracerebral hemorrhage; clinical outcome
Štítky
Příznaky
Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 16. 7. 2024 11:15, Bc. Hana Vladíková, BBA
Anotace
V originále
The safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) are well established in anterior circulation stroke (ACS) but are much less clear for posterior circulation stroke (PCS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of parenchymal hematoma (PH) and 3-month clinical outcomes after IVT in PCS and ACS. In an observational, cohort multicenter study, we analyzed data from ischemic stroke patients treated with IVT prospectively collected in the SITS (Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke) registry in the Czech Republic between 2004 and 2018. Out of 10,211 patients, 1166 (11.4%) had PCS, and 9045 (88.6%) ACS. PH was less frequent in PCS versus ACS patients: 3.6 vs. 5.9%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.594 in the whole set, 4.4 vs. 7.8%, OR = 0.543 in those with large vessel occlusion (LVO), and 2.2 vs. 4.7%, OR = 0.463 in those without LVO. At 3 months, PCS patients compared with ACS patients achieved more frequently excellent clinical outcomes (modified Rankin scale [mRS] 0-1: 55.5 vs. 47.6%, OR = 1.371 in the whole set and 49.2 vs. 37.6%, OR = 1.307 in those with LVO), good clinical outcomes (mRS 0-2: 69.9 vs. 62.8%, OR = 1.377 in the whole set and 64.5 vs. 50.5%, OR = 1.279 in those with LVO), and had lower mortality (12.4 vs. 16.6%, OR = 0.716 in the whole set and 18.4 vs. 25.5%, OR = 0.723 in those with LVO) (p < 0.05 in all cases). In PCS versus ACS patients, an extensive analysis showed a lower risk of PH both in patients with and without LVO, more frequent excellent and good clinical outcomes, and lower mortality 3 months after IVT in patients with LVO.
Návaznosti
90249, velká výzkumná infrastruktura |
|