Efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis based on diffusion-weighted imaging and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery mismatch in patients with wake-up stroke
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4165.2022.03.001
- VernacularTitle:基于弥散加权成像与液体衰减反转恢复序列不匹配的静脉溶栓在醒后卒中患者中的有效性和安全性
- Author:
Fei LI
1
;
Jing CHEN
;
Lei HUANG
;
Juncang WU
Author Information
1. 合肥市第二人民医院神经内科 230011
- Keywords:
Stroke;
Brain ischemia;
Thrombolytic therapy;
Tissue plasminogen activator;
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging;
Magnetic resonance imaging;
Treatment outc
- From:
International Journal of Cerebrovascular Diseases
2022;30(3):161-166
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis based on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) mismatch in patients with wake-up stroke (WUS).Methods:Patients with acute ischemic stroke received alteplase intravenous thrombolysis in the Stroke Center, the Second People's Hospital of Hefei from July 2019 to June 2021 were enrolled retrospectively. According to the time of finding the symptoms, they were divided into WUS group and non-WUS group. The demographic and baseline clinical data were documented and compared between the two groups. The efficacy endpoint was the clinical outcome assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (MRS) score at 90 d after onset. 0-2 was defined as a good outcome, and >2 were defined as a poor outcome. The primary safety endpoint was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH); the secondary safety endpoint was death within 90 d after onset. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent risk factors for poor outcome. Results:A total of 256 patients with acute ischemic stroke were enrolled, including 155 males (60.5%), aged 63.0±8.53 years. The median time from symptom onset to intravenous thrombolysis was 130.5 min, and the median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 7. Forty-eight patients (18.7%) were WUS and 208 (81.3%) were non-WUS; 186 (72.7%) had a good outcome and 70 (27.3%) had a poor outcome. There were no significant differences in 90 d good outcome rate (79.2% vs. 71.2%; χ2=1.260, P=0.262), sICH incidence (4.2% vs. 5.3%; χ2=0.102, P=0.750) and 90 d mortality (2.1% vs. 3.4%; χ2=0.000, P=1.000) between the WUS group and the non-WUS group. The baseline NIHSS score, the time from symptom onset to intravenous thrombolysis and the proportion of patients with cardiogenic embolism in the poor outcome group were significantly higher than those in the good outcome group (all P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the baseline NIHSS score (odds ratio 1.670, 95% confidence interval 1.453-1.919; P<0.001) and the time from symptom onset to intravenous thrombolysis (odds ratio 1.007, 95% confidence interval 1.000-1.015; P=0.043) were the independent risk factors for the poor outcome. Conclusion:The efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis in DWI-FLAIR-mismatched wake-up stroke patients are comparable to those of acute ischemic stroke within the time window.
