DOI 10.1007/s00415-019-09474-y
Endovascular therapy versus intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection-related ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
The purpose of our meta-analysis is to evaluate the endovascular therapy (EVT) in patients with cervical artery dissection (CAD)-related acute ischemic stroke (AIS) by comparing its efficacy and safety with the ones of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT).
METHODS
A systematic search on EVT to CAD-related ischemic stroke is performed. The meta-analysis models are applied to calculate either the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or pooled proportions with 95% CI of favorable functional outcome (mRS = 0-2), excellent functional outcome (mRS = 0-1), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), mortality and recurrent stroke between EVT and IVT in CAD-related stroke. The differences between the two treatment groups are analyzed by the pooled odds ratio value and Chi-squared test.
RESULTS
A total of 190 patients given EVT and 139 IVT-alone patients are included. By comparing EVT alone and IVT alone, patients treated with EVT alone are more likely to experience favorable outcomes than those treated with IVT alone (71.2% vs 53.4%). Besides, there is no significant difference in excellent functional outcome, SICH, mortality and recurrent stroke between the EVT-alone and IVT-alone groups (all P > 0.05). Towards general EVT (EVT with or without IVT), the outcomes are not significantly different from those of IVT alone except for a higher mortality rate (10.2% vs 3.2%).
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings, EVT is considered to be more efficacious than IVT for CAD-related AIS patients. Although EVT alone tends to be safe and promising, its safety needs to be further evaluated, particularly for EVT separating from IVT therapy.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.