Diffusion-weighted imaging and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery mismatch guide intravenous thrombolysis in patients with ischemic stroke beyond a 4.5-h time window
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4165.2022.05.003
- VernacularTitle:弥散加权成像与液体衰减反转恢复序列不匹配指导超过4.5 h时间窗缺血性卒中患者的静脉溶栓治疗
- 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;
Thrombotic therapy;
Magnetic resonance imaging;
Intracranial hemorrhages;
Treatment outcome;
Time factor
- From:
International Journal of Cerebrovascular Diseases
2022;30(5):333-338
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the efficacy and safety of using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) mismatch to guide intravenous thrombolysis in patients with ischemic stroke beyond a 4.5-h time window.Methods:Patients with acute ischemic stroke received intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase in the Stroke Center of Hefei Second People's Hospital from July 2019 to June 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. According to the time of onset, they were divided into the time window group and the beyond time window group. The demographic and baseline clinical data of both groups were recorded and compared. The primary outcome measure was the clinical outcome assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 d after onset. 0-2 points were defined as good outcome, and >2 were defined as poor outcome. The secondary outcome measure was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent risk factors for poor outcomes. Results:A total of 244 patients with acute ischemic stroke were enrollded, including 146 males (58.8%), aged 61.4±8.47 years. The median time from onset to thrombolysis was 142 min, and the median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 7. Thirty-six (14.8%) patients exceeded the 4.5 h time window, and 69 (28.3%) patients had poor outcomes. There were no significant differences in the good outcome rate (71.2% vs. 75.0%; χ2=0.224, P=0.636), any intracranial hemorrhage (9.6% vs. 13.9%; χ2=0.233, P=0.629) and the incidence of sICH (5.3% vs. 5.6%; χ2=0.000, P=1.000) between the time window group and the beyond time window group. Univariate analysis showed that the proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation or cardiogenic embolism and the baseline NIHSS score in the poor outcome group were significantly higher than those in the good outcome group (all P<0.05), while there was no statistical difference in the proportion of patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis beyond the time window. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only the baseline NIHSS score was an independent risk factor for poor outcomes (odds ratio 1.681, 95% confidence interval 1.457-1.940; P<0.001). Conclusions:Compared with the patients who received intravenous thrombolysis within 4.5 h after onset, intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke beyond the 4.5 h time window guided by DWI-FLAIR mismatch results in similar clinical outcomes, and does not increase the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage.
