Effect of endovascular treatment on acute progressive ischemic stroke in posterior circulation
黎丹丹,程峙娟,刘旭,陈未平,殷敏,郭华,涂江龙
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11817/j.issn.1673-9248.2023.02.006
2023-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To investigate the effect of endovascular treatment on acute ischemic stroke progression in posterior circulation (AISPPC) caused by large vessel stenosis or occlusions, and to provide evidence for the treatment strategy of AISPPC.Methods:According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 34 patients with AISPPC hospitalized in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from May 2020 to December 2021 were enrolled. Among them, 21 patients who were given vascular intervention plus standard drug therapy at the duration of progression were included in the observation group. Patients treated with aspirin plus Clopidogrel/Tirofiban/Argatroban were included in the control group (13 patients, one of whom was lost to follow-up). The preoperative data of the two groups were collected, including age, gender, past medical history, history of alcohol and tobacco use, etiology of cerebral infarction, imaging data, and National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) score at onset and at exacerbation, incidence and complications of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). NIHSS score, modified Rankin scale (mRS) score, and mortality at 90 days after treatment were analyzed.Results:There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups, such as age, gender, past medical history, history of alcohol and tobacco use, NIHSS score at onset and exacerbation, cause of cerebral infarction, posterior circulation acute stroke prognosis early computed tomography score (pcASPECTS) score, Bern (diffusion weighted imaging, DWI) score, and different responsible vessels (P＞0.05). Multiple logistic regression and linear regression analysis showed that, after adjusting age and gender, the 90-day mRS 0-2 score in the observation group was higher than that in the control group (76.19% vs 41.67%, P=0.039), and the 90-day mRS score was lower than that in the control group [1.00 (0, 2.00) vs 4.50 (1.75, 6.00)]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that compared with the control group, the observation group had lower mortality, and the difference was statistically significant (14.29% vs 50.00%, OR=0.17, 95%CI: 0.03-0.88, P=0.035). Patients in both groups were followed up to 90 days. Among 21 patients in the observation group, 3 died (2 due to higher NIHSS scores during exacerbation and 1 due to bleeding transformation after reperfusion injury). Among 13 patients in the control group, one was lost to follow-up (at 14 days of follow-up), and 6 died (4 due to higher NIHSS scores during exacerbation and 2 patients died of severe complications). For the prognosis of the follow-up patients, K-M survival curve analysis showed that with the extension of follow-up time, the survival rate of the observation group was higher than that of the control group, and the risk of long-term recurrent cerebral infarction was reduced, and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05).Conclusion:Compared with conservative treatment, endovascular interventional therapy for AISPPC patients caused by large vessel stenosis or occlusions has better neurological function recovery and lower mortality, and dosen't increase the risk of sICH. Delayed vascularization still has a good therapeutic effect. In addition, randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate its effectiveness.