Journal of neurology · 2006
Reasons to withhold intra-arterial thrombolysis in clinical practice.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Isenegger J, Nedeltchev K, Arnold M, Fischer U, Schroth G, Remonda L, Mattle H P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In selected stroke centers intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) is used for the treatment of acute stroke patients presenting within 6 hours of symptom onset. However, data about eligibility of acute stroke patients for IAT in clinical practice are very scarce.
METHODS: We collected prospectively data on indications advising for or against IAT of 230 consecutive stroke patients in a tertiary stroke center.
RESULTS: 76 patients (33.0%) presented within 3 hours, 69 (30%) between 3 and 6 hours of symptom onset and 85 (37%) later than 6 hours. Arteriography was performed in 71 patients (31%) and IAT in 46 (20%). In 11 patients no or only peripheral branch occlusions were seen on arteriography and therefore IAT was not performed. In 9 patients the ICA was occluded and barred IAT and in five anatomical or technical difficulties made IAT impossible. 72 patients presenting within 6 hours did not undergo arteriography and thrombolysis, mostly because of mild (n=44) or rapidly improving neurological deficits (n=13). Other reasons to withhold IAT were CT and/or clinical findings suggesting lacunar stroke due to small vessel occlusion (n=7), limiting comorbidty (n=7) and baseline international normalized ratio>1.7 (n=1).
CONCLUSIONS: A third of the patients underwent diagnostic arteriography and one fifth received IAT. The most important reasons to withhold thrombolysis were presentation beyond the 6 hours time window and mild or rapidly improving symptoms.
METHODS: We collected prospectively data on indications advising for or against IAT of 230 consecutive stroke patients in a tertiary stroke center.
RESULTS: 76 patients (33.0%) presented within 3 hours, 69 (30%) between 3 and 6 hours of symptom onset and 85 (37%) later than 6 hours. Arteriography was performed in 71 patients (31%) and IAT in 46 (20%). In 11 patients no or only peripheral branch occlusions were seen on arteriography and therefore IAT was not performed. In 9 patients the ICA was occluded and barred IAT and in five anatomical or technical difficulties made IAT impossible. 72 patients presenting within 6 hours did not undergo arteriography and thrombolysis, mostly because of mild (n=44) or rapidly improving neurological deficits (n=13). Other reasons to withhold IAT were CT and/or clinical findings suggesting lacunar stroke due to small vessel occlusion (n=7), limiting comorbidty (n=7) and baseline international normalized ratio>1.7 (n=1).
CONCLUSIONS: A third of the patients underwent diagnostic arteriography and one fifth received IAT. The most important reasons to withhold thrombolysis were presentation beyond the 6 hours time window and mild or rapidly improving symptoms.