Introduction: In patients with stroke attributable to cervical artery dissection, we compared endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis regarding three-month outcome, recanalisation and complications. Materials and methods: In a multicentre intravenous thrombolysis/endovascular therapy-register-based cohort study, all consecutive cervical artery dissection patients with intracranial artery occlusion treated within 6 h were eligible for analysis. Endovascular therapy patients (with or without prior intravenous thrombolysis) were compared to intravenous thrombolysis patients regarding (i) excellent three-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1), (ii) symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, (iii) recanalisation of the occluded intracranial artery and (iv) death. Upon a systematic literature review, we performed a meta-analysis comparing endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients regarding three-month outcome using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model. Results: Among 62 cervical artery dissection patients (median age 48.8 years), 24 received intravenous thrombolysis and 38 received endovascular therapy. Excellent three-month outcome occurred in 23.7% endovascular therapy and 20.8% with intravenous thrombolysis patients. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred solely among endovascular therapy patients (5/38 patients, 13.2%) while four (80%) of these patients had bridging therapy; 6/38 endovascular therapy and 0/24 intravenous thrombolysis patients died. Four of these 6 endovascular therapy patients had bridging therapy. Recanalisation was achieved in 84.2% endovascular therapy patients and 66.7% intravenous thrombolysis patients
Methods:18 FDG-PET-CT and MES detection was performed in consecutive patients with 50% to 99% symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Uptake index was defined by a target to background ratio (TBR) between maximum standardized uptake value of the carotid plaque and the average uptake of the jugular veins. The analysis of biomarkers included adhesion molecules [intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM)-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, P-selectin and E-selectin], interleukins (IL-1, IL-6), chemokines (RANTES, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1), cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α), matrix-metalloproteases (MMP), myeloperoxidase, and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2.Results: There were 54 symptomatic and 57 asymptomatic patients. TBR values were significantly higher in the symptomatic compared to the asymptomatic (median 2.1 vs . 1.8, P = 0.002) and in the MES positive (MES+) compared to the MES negative (MES-) group (MES+, n = 19, median 2.3 and MES-, n = 88, median 1.8, P = 0.01). The best threshold for TBR values was of 1.9. We found a significant correlation between higher 18 FDG uptake (TBR ≥ 1.9) and the plasmatic levels of chemokine RANTES (P = 0.03) and higher levels of ICAM-1 in MES+ patients (P = 0.03). Interestingly MMP-2 levels were more important in patients with lower TBR values (P = 0.02) and MMP-3 and P-selectin in those who were MES-(respectively P = 0.001 and P = 0.009). Conclusion:In the present study, ICAM-1 was associated with the presence of thrombotically active atherosclerotic plaques, while RANTES mainly correlated with the inflammatory process. MMP-2, MMP-3 and P-selectin levels were more important in patients with stable plaques.
Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) as treatment in acute ischaemic strokes may be insufficient to achieve recanalisation in certain patients. Predicting probability of non-recanalisation after IVT may have the potential to influence patient selection to more aggressive management strategies. We aimed at deriving and internally validating a predictive score for post-thrombolytic non-recanalisation, using clinical and radiological variables. In thrombolysis registries from four Swiss academic stroke centres (Lausanne, Bern, Basel and Geneva), patients were selected with large arterial occlusion on acute imaging and with repeated arterial assessment at 24 hours. Based on a logistic regression analysis, an integer-based score for each covariate of the fitted multivariate model was generated. Performance of integer-based predictive model was assessed by bootstrapping available data and cross validation (delete-d method). In 599 thrombolysed strokes, five variables were identified as independent predictors of absence of recanalisation: Acute glucose > 7 mmol/l (A), significant extracranial vessel STenosis (ST), decreased Range of visual fields (R), large Arterial occlusion (A) and decreased Level of consciousness (L). All variables were weighted 1, except for (L) which obtained 2 points based on β-coefficients on the logistic scale. ASTRAL-R scores 0, 3 and 6 corresponded to non-recanalisation probabilities of 18, 44 and 74 % respectively. Predictive ability showed AUC of 0.66 (95 %CI, 0.61-0.70) when using bootstrap and 0.66 (0.63-0.68) when using delete-d cross validation. In conclusion, the 5-item ASTRAL-R score moderately predicts non-recanalisation at 24 hours in thrombolysed ischaemic strokes. If its performance can be confirmed by external validation and its clinical usefulness can be proven, the score may influence patient selection for more aggressive revascularisation strategies in routine clinical practice.
Background: Data on endovascular therapy (EVT) in patients with stroke attributable to CeAD is scarce. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies comparing EVT to intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in CeAD-patients and compared EVT to IVT with regard to 3-month outcome and complications. Additionally, we included data of IVT-/EVT-treated CeAD-patients from a Swiss multicenter IVT-/EVT registry based cohort study. Methods: We systematically searched the pubmed® database to identify all existing studies comparing IVT to EVT in CeAD-patients. Studies were eligible if IVT-treated CeAD- patients were compared to EVT-treated patients, and 3-month outcomes were reported as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Outcome measures in this study were favorable 3-month outcome (i.e. mRS 0-2), excellent 3-month outcome (i.e. mRS 0-1), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and death. Additionally, in a Swiss multicenter IVT-/EVT registry based cohort-study (SWISS) we identified all consecutive patients with ischemic stroke attributable to CeAD and included outcome data of these patients in our analyses. In a meta-analysis across all studies, we compared EVT to IVT with regard to primary and secondary outcome measures using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model. Results: The literature search yielded 388 results. We identified 7 eligible studies for a systematic comparison of EVT versus IVT. Data on 62 patients from the SWISS cohort were included as an additional study. In total, we compared EVT (n=102) versus IVT (n=110) in 212 CeAD-patients. With regard to the occurrence of mRS 0-2, there was no significant difference between both treatment groups (OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.57-1.88)). Separate Data on mRS 0-1 was available in 5 studies (OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.39-2.00)). There was no difference between groups with regard to death at 3 months (OR 0.66 (0.22-1.94)) which was separately reported in 6 studies. For sICH there were too few data (n=5 patients) available for meta-analysis. Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of all existing studies comparing EVT to IVT in CeAD patients there was no clear signal of superiority of EVT. Further investigation of EVT with up-to-date devices is warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.