[A comparative study between direct mechanical thrombectomy and bridging therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation associated anterior circulation large vessel occlusion stroke]

Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2022 Dec 6;102(45):3630-3633. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20220419-00857.
[Article in Chinese]

Abstract

From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2021, 94 patients who were diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) associated anterior circulation large vessel occlusion stroke and underwent mechanical thrombectomy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University were retrospectively collected, including 52 patients in the direct mechanical thrombectomy (dMT) group and 42 patients in the bridging therapy (BT) group. All patients received stent thrombectomy, and the BT group received intravenous thrombolytic therapy with alteplase within 4.5 hours.There were no significant differences in 7 d National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score[12.0 (5.2, 42.0) vs 10.0 (6.0, 25.8)], incidence of hemorrhage transformation [44.2%(23/52) vs 45.2%(19/42)], symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage[11.5%(6/52) vs 11.9%(5/42)],90 d mortality[34.6% (18/52) vs 38.1% (16/42)]between the two groups(all P>0.05). The rate of 90 d good prognosis in dMT and BT groups was 36.5% (19/52) and 35.7% (15/42), respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant(OR=1.45, 95%CI: 0.39-3.37, P=0.805). The number of stent passes[2(1,3) vs 1(1,2)] and the vessel recanalization time [(81±41)min vs (57±29)min] in the BT subgroup of middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusion were longer than those in the dMT group (both P<0.05).Therefore, direct thrombectomy has similar efficacy and safety as bridging therapy in the treatment of AF related anterior circulation large vessel occlusive stroke, which is worthy of further research and verification.

收集2015年1月1日至2021年12月31日在大连医科大学附属第一医院接受机械取栓治疗的房颤相关前循环大血管闭塞性脑卒中患者94例,其中直接机械取栓组52例、桥接治疗组42例。所有患者均接受支架取栓,桥接治疗组在4.5 h内接受阿替普酶静脉溶栓。治疗后两组7 d美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分[12.0(5.2,42.0)分比10.0(6.0,25.8)分]、出血转化率[44.2%(23/52)比45.2%(19/42)]、症状性颅内出血率[11.5%(6/52)比 11.9%(5/42)]、90 d死亡率[34.6%(18/52)比 38.1%(16/42)]比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05);直接机械取栓及桥接治疗组90 d 预后良好的比例分别为36.5%(19/52)和35.7%(15/42),差异无统计学意义(OR=1.45,95%CI:0.39~3.37,P=0.805);大脑中动脉闭塞亚组桥接治疗组的取栓次数[2(1,3)次比1(1,2)次]、血管再通时间[(81±41)min比(57±29)min]均较直接取栓组明显增加(均P<0.05)。本研究发现,直接取栓在房颤相关前循环大血管闭塞性脑卒中的治疗上具有与桥接治疗相似的疗效及安全性,值得进一步研究与验证。.

Publication types

  • English Abstract

MeSH terms

  • Atrial Fibrillation*
  • Humans
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Stroke*