首页> 外文期刊>Cerebrovascular diseases >Comparison of Outcomes after Reperfusion Therapy between In-Hospital and Out-of-Hospital Stroke Patients
【24h】

Comparison of Outcomes after Reperfusion Therapy between In-Hospital and Out-of-Hospital Stroke Patients

机译:院内和院外卒中患者再灌注治疗后结果的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Patients may experience stroke while being admitted to the hospital (in-hospital stroke (IHS)) and they may be important candidates for reperfusion therapy. IHS patients may have various comorbidities and show worse outcomes compared with patients with an out-of-hospital stroke (OHS). On the other hand, the time from onset to treatment may be shorter in IHS patients than OHS patients. Most outcome studies of reperfusion therapy have been based on findings in OHS patients, and little information is currently available regarding outcomes of IHS, whether the outcomes differ between patients with IHS and those with OHS who receive reperfusion therapy. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study using prospectively registered data. Consecutive patients who underwent the reperfusion therapy (intravenous (IV), intra-arterial (IA), or combined IV and IA) between July 2002 and June 2014 in a university hospital were included for this study. We compared the demographics, time interval from symptom onset to treatment, and outcomes between IHS and OHS patients and analyzed the factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 686 patients received the reperfusion therapy during the study period. Of them, 256 (37.3%) patients received the IV tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) therapy only, 243 (35.4%) patients received the IA therapy only, and 187 (27.3%) patients received the combined IV and IA therapy. Among these, 104 (15.2%) were IHS patients. The time intervals from symptom onset to IV t-PA administration (87.5 +/- 48.4 vs. 113.4 +/- 38.3 min, p < 0.001) and IA puncture (221.8 +/- 195.0 vs. 343.6 +/- 155.4 min, p < 0.001) were shorter for IHS than OHS. The rates of successful recanalization and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and the favorable functional outcome at 3 months were similar between the groups. In-hospital all-cause mortality was higher in IHS than OHS (16.3 vs. 8.4%, p = 0.019), but after adjustment, IHS was not an independent factor. The stroke mortality did not differ between the groups (9.6 vs. 6.9%, p = 0.432). Conclusions: Although IHS patients more frequently had comorbid diseases and higher overall in-hospital mortality, the standard outcomes of the reperfusion therapy were similar between IHS and OHS patients, which might be, in part, ascribed to the shorter interval from symptom onset to treatment in IHS. Considering a substantial portion of IHS patients, we should pay more attention to these patients. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
机译:背景:患者入院时可能会发生中风(住院中风(IHS)),并且可能是再灌注治疗的重要候选人。与院外中风(OHS)的患者相比,IHS患者可能有多种合并症并显示出较差的结果。另一方面,IHS患者从发病到治疗的时间可能比OHS患者短。关于再灌注治疗的大多数结局研究都是基于OHS患者的发现,目前关于IHS结局的信息很少,无论IHS患者与接受再灌注治疗的OHS患者之间结局是否不同。方法:这是一项使用前瞻性注册数据的回顾性观察研究。在2002年7月至2014年6月之间在大学医院接受再灌注治疗(静脉(IV),动脉内(IA)或IV和IA组合)的连续患者被纳入本研究。我们比较了人口统计资料,从症状发作到治疗的时间间隔以及IHS和OHS患者之间的结局,并分析了与院内死亡率相关的因素。结果:在研究期间,共有686例患者接受了再灌注治疗。其中,只有256名(37.3%)患者接受了IV组织纤溶酶原激活剂(t-PA)治疗,仅243名(35.4%)患者接受了IA治疗,而187名(27.3%)患者接受了IV和IA联合治疗。其中,IHS患者为10​​4名(15.2%)。从症状发作到静脉给予t-PA的时间间隔(87.5 +/- 48.4 vs. 113.4 +/- 38.3 min,p <0.001)和IA穿刺(221.8 +/- 195.0 vs. 343.6 +/- 155.4 min,p对于IHS,<0.001)比OHS短。两组的再通成功率和症状性脑出血发生率以及3个月时的良好功能转归相似。 IHS的院内全因死亡率高于OHS(16.3比8.4%,p = 0.019),但经过调整后,IHS并不是一个独立因素。两组之间的卒中死亡率无差异(9.6%vs. 6.9%,p = 0.432)。结论:尽管IHS患者合并症较高,整体院内死亡率较高,但IHS和OHS患者的再灌注治疗标准结果相似,部分原因是从症状发作到治疗间隔较短在IHS中。考虑到IHS患者中的很大一部分,我们应该更多地关注这些患者。 (C)2015 S.Karger AG,巴塞尔

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号