合并心房颤动的急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓的疗效
2015-02-26张芳芳张佩兰
张芳芳 张佩兰
1 天津医科大学,天津市 300070; 2 天津市环湖医院神经内科
合并心房颤动的急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓的疗效
张芳芳1张佩兰2
1天津医科大学,天津市300070;2天津市环湖医院神经内科
心房颤动患者发生缺血性卒中的风险比一般人高出4~5倍[1]。心房颤动会增加卒中的严重程度,提高合并症和不良预后的发生率[2]。随着年龄的增长,心房颤动患者发生卒中的风险也随之增加,50~59岁患者发生卒中风险为1.5%,80岁以上患者发生卒中的风险则高达25%[3]。一些研究认为心房颤动是缺血性卒中预后不良危险因素之一[4,5],而有项研究结果表明缺血性卒中患者的预后与是否合并心房颤动无关[6]。本文旨在探索心房颤动是否影响急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓的预后。
1资料和方法
1.1病例选择对天津市环湖医院神经内科2012年6月-2013年10月在发病4.5h内应用rt-PA静脉溶栓的急性缺血性卒中患者进行回顾性分析。将发病3h内接受静脉溶栓治疗的109例患者,根据是否合并心房颤动分为房颤组47例,无房颤组62例;将发病3~4.5h内接受静脉溶栓治疗的108例患者,根据是否合并心房颤动分为房颤组52例,无房颤组56例。
1.2治疗方法发病4.5h内选择rt-PA治疗,剂量为0.9mg/kg,总剂量不超过90mg,其中10%静脉推注,余下的90%在60min内静脉缓慢滴入。
1.3疗效评定217例患者在溶栓后22~36h接受了计算机断层扫描或磁共振成像。与脑实质性血肿相关的NIHSS评分增加4分及以上的神经功能恶化即认为是症状性颅内出血[7]。主要观察指标是90d时患者良好预后(改良Rankin评分0~2分)发生率,次要观察指标包括住院期间颅内出血(ICH)、症状性颅内出血(sICH)的发生率和死亡率。
2结果
本研究共纳入217例患者,其中在发病3h内接受静脉溶栓治疗的患者为109例,发病3~4.5h之间接受静脉溶栓治疗的患者为108例。
2.1发病3h内接受静脉溶栓治疗组房颤组90d时获得良好预后32例(68.1%),无房颤组40例(64.5%),两组间无统计学差异(P=0.697)。房颤组症状性颅内出血的发生率为4.3%(2例),无房颤组为1.6%(1例),两组间并无显著性差异(P=0.577)。房颤组共有3例(6.4%)患者死亡,无房颤组为2例(3.2%),两组间无统计学差异(P=0.650)。见表1。
2.2发病3~4.5h之间接受静脉溶栓治疗组房颤组90d时获得良好预后21例(40.4%),无房颤组35例(62.5%),无房颤组高于房颤组,两组间有统计学差异(P=0.022)。房颤组颅内出血的发生率高于无房颤组,两组间差异具有统计学意义(23.1% VS 7.1%,P=0.029)。房颤组症状性颅内出血的发生率为7.7%(4例),无房颤组为3.6%(2例),两组间并无显著性差异(P=0.425)。房颤组共有5例(9.6%)患者死亡,无房颤组为2例(3.6%),两组间无统计学差异(P=0.258)。见表2。
表1 发病后3h内进行rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗的
注:NIHSS:美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表。
表2 发病后3~4.5h内进行rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗的
注:NIHSS:美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表。
3讨论
ECASSⅢ试验结果公布后,欧洲卒中组织及美国心脏协会/美国卒中协会将静脉溶栓时间窗从3h扩延至4.5h,基于上述标准,笔者纳入的患者接受静脉溶栓的时间均在发病4.5h之内。
一些研究结果表明,静脉溶栓后的早期完全性血管再通是90d时预后良好的独立预测因素[8]。心源性卒中患者,颅内动脉多形成红色血栓[9]。红色血栓由红细胞和部分纤维蛋白构成。动物实验发现,红色血栓对阿替普酶敏感性更强,更容易被溶解,血管再通几率更高[10]。有些临床研究结果显示,阿替普酶诱导的心源性卒中患者颅内血管再通成功率更高[11]。而有研究认为心房颤动形成的栓子比动脉粥样硬化性血栓更大,陈旧性血栓比例更高,更难被阿替普酶溶解。笔者的研究发现,在发病3h内接受静脉溶栓的急性缺血性卒中患者,其中房颤组患者获得良好预后的比例高于无房颤组(68.1% VS 64.5%,P=0.697);而在发病3~4.5h之间接受静脉溶栓的急性缺血性卒中患者中,房颤组患者获得良好预后的比例则低于无房颤组(40.4% VS 62.5%,P=0.022)。
VISTA联合组研究共纳入3 027例急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓患者,其中1 631例(53.9%)患者合并心房颤动病史[12]。研究发现,无论是静脉溶栓组还是安慰剂对照组,房颤组与无房颤组颅内出血(包括非症状性颅内出血及症状性颅内出血)的发生率并没有显著性差异。本研究中,在发病3h内接受静脉溶栓治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者,房颤组颅内出血的发生率高于无房颤组(8.5% VS 3.2%),但两组间差异无统计学意义(P=0.399);房颤组患者症状性颅内出血的发生率为4.3%(2例),无房颤组为1.6%(1例),两组间无显著性差异(P=0.577),与上述结果相似。国外和国内均有相关研究发现[13,14],心房颤动是静脉溶栓后发生颅内出血的独立危险因素。在发病3~4.5h之间接受静脉溶栓治疗的急性缺血性卒中患者,房颤组颅内出血的发生率明显高于无房颤组,差异有统计学意义(23.1% VS 7.1%,P=0.029),这与上述研究结果一致。但两组间症状性颅内出血的发生率无显著性差异(7.7% VS 3.6%,P=0.425)。这说明房颤患者在发病3~4.5h之间接受静脉溶栓治疗,颅内出血主要是血管再通所致的渗血,并不是血管破裂后的出血。
研究发现,合并心房颤动的急性缺血性卒中患者在发病3h内接受静脉溶栓治疗预后较好,而在发病3~4.5h之间合并心房颤动的急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓治疗的预后较无心房颤动的患者预后差,颅内出血风险高。因此,对于符合溶栓条件的合并心房颤动的急性缺血性卒中患者应尽可能在发病3h内溶栓,而对于在发病3~4.5h之间的患者应慎重权衡静脉溶栓的获益与风险比。
参考文献
[1]Goldstein LB, Bushnell CD, Adams RJ,etal.Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association〔J〕. Stroke,2011,42(2):517-584.
[2]Lin S,Wu B,Hao ZL,etal.Characteristics,treatment and outcome of ischemic stroke with atrial fibrillation in a Chinese hospital-based stroke study〔J〕.Cerebrovascular Diseases,2011,31(5):419-426.
[3]Asberg S,Henriksson KM,Farahmand B,etal.Ischemic stroke and secondary prevention in clinical practice: a cohort study of 14,529 patients in the Swedish Stroke Register〔J〕.Stroke,2010,41(7):1338-1342.
[4] Tu HT,Campbell BC,Christensen S,etal.Echoplanar Imaging Thrombolytic Evaluation Trial (EPITHET) Investigators.Pathophysiological determinants of worse stroke outcome in atrial fibrillation〔J〕.Cerebrovasc Dis,2010,30(4):389-395.
[5]Sana′k D,Herzig R,Kra′l M,etal.Is atrial fibrillation associated with poor outcome after thrombolysis? 〔J〕. J Neurol,2010,257(6):999-1003.
[6]Zhang JB, Ding ZY, Yang Y,etal.Thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation〔J〕. Neurol Res,2010,32(4):353-358.
[7]Hacke W, Kaste M, Fieschi C,etal.Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of thrombolytic therapy with intravenous alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke (ECASSⅡ).Second European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study Investigators〔J〕. Lancet,1998,352(9136): 1245-1251.
[8]Khatri P, Abruzzo T, Yeatts SD,etal.Good clinical outcome after ischemic stroke with successful revascularization is time-dependent〔J〕. Neurology,2009,73(13):1066-1072.
[9]Ogata J, Yutani C, Otsubo R,etal.Heart and vessel pathology underlying brain infarction in 142 stroke patients〔J〕. Annals of Neurology ,2008,63(6):770-781.
[10]Jang IK, Gold HK, Ziskind AA,etal.Differential sensitivity of erythrocyte-rich and platelet-rich arterial thrombi to lysis with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator. A possible explanation for resistance to coronary thrombolysis〔J〕. Circulation,1989,79(4):920-928.
[11]Puig J,Pedraza S,Demchuk A,etal.Quantification of thrombus hounsfield units on noncontrast CT predicts stroke subtype and early recanalization after intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator〔J〕.American Journal of Neuroradiology,2012,33(1):90-96.
[12]Frank B, Fulton R, Weimar C,etal.Impact of atrial fibrillation on outcome in thrombolyzed patients with stroke: evidence from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA) 〔J〕. Stroke, 2012,43(7):1872-1877.
[13]Wahlgren N,Ahmed N,Eriksson N,etal.Multivariable analysis of outcome predictors and adjustment of main outcome results to baseline data profile in randomized controlled trials:Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-Monitoring Study (SITS-MOST) 〔J〕.Stroke,2008,39(12):3316-3322.
[14]苏敏,杨卫新,王万华,等.急性缺血性卒中重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂静脉溶栓致出血性转化及其预后的危险因素分析〔J〕.中华神经科杂志,2011,44(11):754-758.
(本文通讯作者:张佩兰)
(编辑雅文)
◎致 作 者 读 者◎
本刊是反映交流医、药、护、卫、管人员的科技成果和临床经验以及医药卫生教学战线人员教学经验的理想园地,是评定、晋升职称及竞争上岗的有效依据媒体。本刊自2011年1月变更为半月刊后,以全新的理念、全新的管理、全新的编排,为你提供更加完美、优惠的服务。欢迎广大作者读者投稿、订阅。
摘要目的:探讨心房颤动是否影响急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓的疗效。方法:对天津市环湖医院神经内科2012年6月-2013年10月在发病4.5h内应用rt-PA静脉溶栓的急性缺血性卒中患者进行回顾性分析:(1)发病3h内接受静脉溶栓治疗的109例患者,根据是否合并心房颤动分为房颤组47例,无房颤组62例;(2)发病3~4.5h内接受静脉溶栓治疗的108例患者,根据是否合并心房颤动分为房颤组52例,无房颤组56例。主要观察指标是90d时患者良好预后发生率,次要观察指标包括溶栓后住院期间症状性颅内出血(sICH)的发生率和死亡率。结果:(1)发病3h内接受静脉溶栓治疗组:房颤组90d时获得良好预后32例(68.1%),无房颤组40例(64.5%),两组间无统计学差异(P=0.697)。房颤组症状性颅内出血的发生率为4.3%(2例),无房颤组为1.6%(1例),两组间并无显著性差异(P=0.577)。房颤组共有3例(6.4%)患者死亡,无房颤组为2例(3.2%),两组间无统计学差异(P=0.650)。(2)发病3~4.5h之间接受静脉溶栓治疗组:房颤组90d时获得良好预后21例(40.4%),无房颤组35例(62.5%),无房颤组高于房颤组,两组间有统计学差异(P=0.022)。房颤组颅内出血的发生率高于无房颤组,两组间差异具有统计学意义(23.1% VS 7.1%,P=0.029)。房颤组症状性颅内出血的发生率为7.7%(4例),无房颤组为3.6%(2例),两组间并无显著性差异(P=0.425)。房颤组共有5例(9.6%)患者死亡,无房颤组为2例(3.6%),两组间无统计学差异(P=0.258)。结论:对于符合溶栓条件的合并心房颤动的急性缺血性卒中患者应尽可能在发病3h内溶栓,而对于在发病3~4.5h之间的患者应慎重权衡静脉溶栓的获益与风险比。
关键词急性缺血性卒中心房颤动临床预后静脉溶栓
The Outcome of Intravenous Thrombolysis on Acute Ischemic Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
ZHANG Fangfang*,ZHANG Peilan.*TianjinMedicalUniversity,TianjinCity300070
ABSTRACTObjective:We aim to determine whether atrial fibrillation is a factor of prognosis in patients with intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke.Methods:We reviewed the medical records of patients treated for acute ischemic stroke with intravenous alteplase within 4.5 hours from June 2012 to October 2013 at Tianjin Huanhu Hospital.(1) A total of 109 acute ischemic stroke patients were treated with intravenous thrombolytic therapy within 3 hours.According to the presence or absence of atrial fibrillation, patients were classified into atrial fibrillation (n=47) and no atrial fibrillation (n=62).(2)A total of 108 acute ischemic stroke patients were treated with intravenous thrombolytic therapy after the onset from 3 hours to 4.5 hours.According to the presence or absence of atrial fibrillation, patients were classified into atrial fibrillation (n=52) and no atrial fibrillation (n=56).The main outcome considered was a favorable outcome on 90th day after thrombolysis.Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and sICH at discharge.Results:(1)Patients were treated with intravenous thrombolytic therapy within 3 hours:there were no significant differences between atrial fibrillation group and no atrial fibrillation group in favorable outcome on 90th day(68.1% VS 64.5%,P=0.697),symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (4.3% VS 1.6%,P=0.577) and death (6.4% VS 3.2%,P=0.650).(2)Patients were treated with intravenous thrombolytic therapy after the onset of from 3 hours to 4.5 hours:More patients had favorable outcomes in no atrial fibrillation group than atrial fibrillation group (62.5%VS 40.4%,P=0.022).There were no significant differences between atrial fibrillation group and no atrial fibrillation group in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (7.7% VS 3.6%,P=0.425) and death (9.6%VS 3.6%,P=0.258),although the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage was higher in no atrial fibrillation group (7.1%VS 23.1%,P=0.029).Conclusion:Patients with acute ischemic stroke who were in line with condition of thrombolysis should be treated with ateplase as quickly within 3 hours after the onset of stroke while patients with acute ischemic stroke after the onset from 3 hours to 4.5 hours should carefully weigh the benefits and risks of intravenous thrombolysis.
KEY WORDSAcute ischemic stroke,Atrial fibrillation,Clinical outcome,Intravenous thrombolysis
收稿日期2014-12-17
中图分类号:R743
文献标识码:A
文章编号:1001-7585(2015)10-1263-03