BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection (CAD) are controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to pool all individual patient data and provide a valid estimate of safety and outcome of thrombolysis in CAD. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search on intravenous and intra-arterial thrombolysis in CAD. We calculated the rates of pooled symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and mortality and indirectly compared them with matched controls from the Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-International Stroke Thrombolysis Register. We applied multivariate regression models to identify predictors of excellent (modified Rankin Scale=0 to 1) and favorable (modified Rankin Scale=0 to 2) outcome. RESULTS: We obtained individual patient data of 180 patients from 14 retrospective series and 22 case reports. Patients were predominantly female (68%), with a mean±SD age of 46±11 years. Most patients presented with severe stroke (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score=16). Treatment was intravenous thrombolysis in 67% and intra-arterial thrombolysis in 33%. Median follow-up was 3 months. The pooled symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3 to 7.2). Overall mortality was 8.1% (95% CI, 4.9 to 13.2), and 41.0% (95% CI, 31.4 to 51.4) had an excellent outcome. Stroke severity was a strong predictor of outcome. Overlapping confidence intervals of end points indicated no relevant differences with matched controls from the Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-International Stroke Thrombolysis Register. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and outcome of thrombolysis in patients with CAD-related stroke appear similar to those for stroke from all causes. Based on our findings, thrombolysis should not be withheld in patients with CAD.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection (CAD) are controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to pool all individual patient data and provide a valid estimate of safety and outcome of thrombolysis in CAD. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search on intravenous and intra-arterial thrombolysis in CAD. We calculated the rates of pooled symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and mortality and indirectly compared them with matched controls from the Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-International Stroke Thrombolysis Register. We applied multivariate regression models to identify predictors of excellent (modified Rankin Scale=0 to 1) and favorable (modified Rankin Scale=0 to 2) outcome. RESULTS: We obtained individual patient data of 180 patients from 14 retrospective series and 22 case reports. Patients were predominantly female (68%), with a mean±SD age of 46±11 years. Most patients presented with severe stroke (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score=16). Treatment was intravenous thrombolysis in 67% and intra-arterial thrombolysis in 33%. Median follow-up was 3 months. The pooled symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3 to 7.2). Overall mortality was 8.1% (95% CI, 4.9 to 13.2), and 41.0% (95% CI, 31.4 to 51.4) had an excellent outcome. Stroke severity was a strong predictor of outcome. Overlapping confidence intervals of end points indicated no relevant differences with matched controls from the Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-International Stroke Thrombolysis Register. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and outcome of thrombolysis in patients with CAD-related stroke appear similar to those for stroke from all causes. Based on our findings, thrombolysis should not be withheld in patients with CAD.
Authors: Naif M Alotaibi; Jennifer E Fugate; Timothy J Kaufmann; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Eelco F M Wijdicks; Giuseppe Lanzino Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Wiebke Kurre; Kai Bansemir; Marta Aguilar Pérez; Rosa Martinez Moreno; Elisabeth Schmid; Hansjörg Bäzner; Hans Henkes Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2016-10-29 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Georgios Tsivgoulis; Ramin Zand; Aristeidis H Katsanos; Vijay K Sharma; Nitin Goyal; Christos Krogias; Apostolos Safouris; Konstantinos Vadikolias; Konstantinos Voumvourakis; Anne W Alexandrov; Marc D Malkoff; Andrei V Alexandrov Journal: J Neurol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 4.849