首页> 外文期刊>Stroke: A Journal of Cerebral Circulation >Revascularization end points in stroke interventional trials: recanalization versus reperfusion in IMS-I.
【24h】

Revascularization end points in stroke interventional trials: recanalization versus reperfusion in IMS-I.

机译:中风介入试验中的血运重建终点:IMS-1中的再通与再灌注。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The acute stroke literature lacks a standard convention regarding the critical end point of revascularization. Two distinct parameters may be clinically important: (1) recanalization of the primary arterial occlusive lesion (AOL) and (2) global reperfusion of the distal vascular bed. We sought to determine their relationship in the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) Phase I trial of combined intravenous (IV) and intraarterial (IA) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. METHODS: Sixty-one angiograms were reanalyzed using recanalization and reperfusion scores. The AOL Score was defined as: 0=no recanalization of the primary occlusion, I=incomplete or partial recanalization of the primary occlusion with no distal flow, II=incomplete or partial recanalization of the primary occlusion with distal flow, or III=complete recanalization of the primary occlusion with distal flow. The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Score was defined as: 0=no perfusion, 1=perfusion past the initial occlusion but no distal branch filling, 2=perfusion and incomplete or slow distal branch filling, or 3=full perfusion with filling of all distal branches. We compared the 2 scores with one another and with good clinical outcome (modified Rankin Score zero to 2). RESULTS: AOL and TIMI scores showed modest agreement (kappa, 0.30; confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.44). Good clinical outcome was seen in 49% of patients with AOL II/III scores (P=0.055) and 54% with TIMI 2/3 scores (P=0.019). The 2 methods did not significantly differ in predicting outcome (P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: AOL recanalization and TIMI reperfusion scores comparably predict clinical outcome in this treatment paradigm. Other modalities may show different relationships between these 2 revascularization end points. Future studies should distinguish between these parameters semantically and methodologically.
机译:背景与目的:急性卒中文献缺乏关于血运重建关键终点的标准约定。两个不同的参数在临床上可能很重要:(1)原发性动脉闭塞性病变(AOL)的再通和(2)远端血管床的整体再灌注。我们试图在静脉注射(IV)和动脉内(IA)重组组织纤溶酶原激活剂联合应用的卒中干预管理(IMS)I期试验中确定它们之间的关系。方法:使用再通和再灌注评分重新分析了61个血管造影照片。 AOL评分的定义为:0 =不进行原发性闭塞的再通,I =不进行远侧血流的原发性闭塞的不完全或部分再通气,II =对不进行远端通气的原发性闭塞的不完全或部分再通,或III =重新通气原发性阻塞与远端血流的关系。心肌梗塞溶栓(TIMI)评分的定义为:0 =无灌注,1 =初始闭塞后灌注​​但无远端分支充盈,2 =灌注和远端分支充盈不完全或缓慢,或3 =完全充盈并充盈所有远端分支。我们将2个评分相互比较,并得出了良好的临床效果(改良的Rankin评分为0至2)。结果:AOL和TIMI评分显示适度一致​​(kappa为0.30;置信区间为0.16至0.44)。 AOL II / III评分(P = 0.055)和TIMI 2/3评分(P = 0.019)的患者中有49%观察到良好的临床结果。两种方法在预测结局方面无显着差异(P = 0.13)。结论:AOL再通和TIMI再灌注评分可比较预测该治疗范例的临床结果。其他方式可能显示这两个血运重建终点之间的不同关系。未来的研究应在语义和方法上区分这些参数。

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