Outcome of endovascular treatment within and beyond 6 h without perfusion software
Abstract Endovascular treatment (EVT) has been accepted as the standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients who received EVT within and beyond 6 h from symptom onset to groin puncture without perfusion software in...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/168b59465938416d9530fd554b29ec16 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Endovascular treatment (EVT) has been accepted as the standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients who received EVT within and beyond 6 h from symptom onset to groin puncture without perfusion software in Guangdong district, China. Between March 2017 and May 2018, acute ischemic stroke patients who received EVT from 6 comprehensive stroke centers, were enrolled into the registry study. In this subgroup study, we included all patients who had acute proximal large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation. The demographic, clinical and neuroimaging data were collected from each center. A total of 192 patients were included in this subgroup study. They were divided into two groups: group A (n = 125), within 6 h; group B (n = 67), 6–24 h from symptom onset to groin puncture. There were no substantial differences between these two groups in terms of 90 days favorable outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS] ≤ 2, P = 0.051) and mortality (P = 0.083), and the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 h (P = 0.425). The NIHSS (median 16, IQR12-20, group A; median 12, IQR8-18, group B; P = 0.009) and ASPECTS (median 10, IQR8-10, group A; median 9, IQR8-10, group B; P = 0.034) at baseline were higher in group A. The anesthesia method (general anesthesia, 21.3%, group A vs. 1.5% group B, P = 0.001) were also statistically different between the two groups. The NIHSS and ASPECTS were higher, and general anesthesia was also more widely used in group A. Clinical outcomes were not significantly different within 6 h versus 6–24 h from symptom onset to groin puncture in this real world study. |
|---|