Intravenous Thrombolysis in Posterior Circulation Stroke.

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15110%2F19%3A73596408" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15110/19:73596408 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2019.00417/full" target="_blank" >https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2019.00417/full</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.00417" target="_blank" >10.3389/fneur.2019.00417</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Intravenous Thrombolysis in Posterior Circulation Stroke.

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

ackground: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is a standard treatment for both anterior circulation ischemic stroke (ACIS) and posterior circulation ischemic stroke (PCIS). PCIS is a clinical syndrome associated with ischemia-related changes in the territory of the posterior circulation arteries. Embolism is the most common stroke mechanism in posterior circulation. PCIS represents 12–19% of all IVT-treated strokes. Methods and Results: We searched the PubMed database for assessments of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and clinical outcome in PCIS patients treated with IVT. ICH occurs in 0–6.9% of posterior ischemic stroke depending on the definition of symptomatic ICH, and any ICH in 17–23.4% of posterior ischemic stroke. For patients with PCIS, 38–49% have a favorable outcome (mRS 0–1) after IVT. Better clinical outcomes occur more often in patients with PCIS than in those with ACIS. The mortality rate among PCIS patients treated with IVT ranges from 9 to 19%; it does not differ significantly between PCIS and ACIS. Conclusions: Up to date, no data about PCIS and IVT are available from RTCs. Based on limited results from retrospective clinical studies and case series, IVT is safer for use in PCIS than in ACIS. Patients with brainstem ischemia, vertebral artery occlusion, and absence of basilar or posterior cerebral artery occlusion could be considered for treatment with IVT even in borderline cases. Time to IVT in PCIS seems to be a less crucial factor than in ACIS. IVT for PCIS may be beneficial even after 4.5 h from symptom onset. FUNDING This study was conducted on an academic basis and was supported by the AZV CR – Health Research Council of the Czech Republic No. 17-29452A, and 17-30101A; by the institutional support of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic MH CZ – DRO (FNOL, 00098892) – 2016, 2017, 2018 and by a grant from the Internal Grant Agency of Palacky University IGA_LF_2018_017 and IGA_LF_2019_010.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Intravenous Thrombolysis in Posterior Circulation Stroke.

Popis výsledku anglicky

ackground: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is a standard treatment for both anterior circulation ischemic stroke (ACIS) and posterior circulation ischemic stroke (PCIS). PCIS is a clinical syndrome associated with ischemia-related changes in the territory of the posterior circulation arteries. Embolism is the most common stroke mechanism in posterior circulation. PCIS represents 12–19% of all IVT-treated strokes. Methods and Results: We searched the PubMed database for assessments of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and clinical outcome in PCIS patients treated with IVT. ICH occurs in 0–6.9% of posterior ischemic stroke depending on the definition of symptomatic ICH, and any ICH in 17–23.4% of posterior ischemic stroke. For patients with PCIS, 38–49% have a favorable outcome (mRS 0–1) after IVT. Better clinical outcomes occur more often in patients with PCIS than in those with ACIS. The mortality rate among PCIS patients treated with IVT ranges from 9 to 19%; it does not differ significantly between PCIS and ACIS. Conclusions: Up to date, no data about PCIS and IVT are available from RTCs. Based on limited results from retrospective clinical studies and case series, IVT is safer for use in PCIS than in ACIS. Patients with brainstem ischemia, vertebral artery occlusion, and absence of basilar or posterior cerebral artery occlusion could be considered for treatment with IVT even in borderline cases. Time to IVT in PCIS seems to be a less crucial factor than in ACIS. IVT for PCIS may be beneficial even after 4.5 h from symptom onset. FUNDING This study was conducted on an academic basis and was supported by the AZV CR – Health Research Council of the Czech Republic No. 17-29452A, and 17-30101A; by the institutional support of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic MH CZ – DRO (FNOL, 00098892) – 2016, 2017, 2018 and by a grant from the Internal Grant Agency of Palacky University IGA_LF_2018_017 and IGA_LF_2019_010.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30210 - Clinical neurology

Projekt

Výsledek vznikl pri realizaci vícero projektů. Více informací v záložce Projekty.

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Frontiers in Neurology

ISSN

1664-2295

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

2019

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

10

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

—

Kód UT WoS článku

000466183600001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85067844628