| Literature DB >> 28081270 |
Michael Gliem1, John-Ih Lee1, Aurica Barckhan1, Bernd Turowski2, Hans-Peter Hartung1, Sebastian Jander1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy (EVT) with stent retrievers in addition to i.v. thrombolysis (IVT) has proven effective in acute stroke patients with middle cerebral artery (MCA, M1 segment) and distal internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. Limited data exist concerning acute cervical ICA occlusion, either alone or in combination with intracranial ICA occlusion (tandem occlusion). Therefore we analyzed outcome and treatment effects in stroke associated with cervical ICA occlusion, with specific focus on the impact of intracranial ICA or M1 patency.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28081270 PMCID: PMC5231377 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170247
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Outcome and treatment effects in patients with isolated cervical ICA occlusion and extra-/intracranial tandem occlusion.
(A) Outcome according to modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores at day 90 in untreated patients with isolated cervical ICA occlusion and extra-/intracranial tandem occlusion, respectively. Scores range from 0–6, 0 indicating no symptoms, 1 no clinically significant disability despite symptoms, 2 slight disability (ability to look after own affairs, but unable to perform all previous activities), 3 moderate disability (some help needed but able to walk unassisted), 4 moderately severe disability (unability to walk alone and care for bodily needs without assistance), 5 severe disability (constant nursing care and attention required), 6 death. Compared to patients with tandem occlusion, favorable outcome (mRS 0–2) and moderate outcome (mRS 0–3) occurred significantly more often in the isolated cervical ICA occlusion group (mRS 0–2: Fisher’s exact test p = 0.02, mRS 0–3: Fisher’s exact test p = 0.006). (B) Effect of combined intravenous/endovascular treatment (IVT/EVT) compared to i.v. treatment alone (IVT). In patients with isolated cervical ICA occlusion, outcome was not significantly different between the IVT/EVT and IVT group (mRS 0–3, Fisher’s exact test p = 0.67). In tandem occlusion, however, we found an increased rate of moderate outcome in IVT/EVT-treated patients compared to IVT alone (Fisher’s exact test p = 0.008). Shift analysis over the whole range of mRS confirmed this finding (Mann-Whitney U p = 0.02). See (A) for details of mRS scoring.
Treatment effects in isolated cervical ICA occlusion and in ICA-MCA tandem occlusion, respectively.
| 0 | 11 | ||||
| 5 | 7 | 1 | 1.4 | 0.26–7.59 | |
| 0 | 3 | 0.22 | 7.73 | 0.35–170.20 | |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 0.67 | 0.08–5.75 | |
| 3 | 6 | 0.41 | 2.33 | 0.39–13.62 | |
| 4 | 7 | 0.67 | 1.33 | 0.38–11.60 | |
| 3 | 10 | 0.06 | 5.6 | 0.94–7.8 | |
| 1 | 8 | ||||
| 1 | 5 | 0.18 | 5.45 | 0.54–54.31 | |
| 8 | 5 | 0.14 | 0.28 | 0.06–1.32 | |
| 1 | 4 | 0.34 | 4 | 0.38–41.25 | |
| 1 | 9 | ||||
Baseline characteristics of untreated patients with isolated ICA occlusion and ICA-MCA tandem occlusion.
| Characteristics | Isolated ICA occlusion without IVT/EVT (n = 21) | ICA-MCA occlusion without IVT/EVT (n = 6) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 (62%) | 4 (67%) | 1.000 | |
| 67 (56–75) | 62 (52–86) | 0.838 | |
| 4 (3–8.5) | 16.5 (11.75–21.25) | ||
| 20 (95%) | 5 (83%) | 0.402 | |
| 7 (33%) | 3 (50%) | 0.638 | |
| 4 (19%) | 1 (17%) | 1.000 | |
| 16 (76%) | 2 (33%) | 0.136 | |
| 10 (48%) | 1 (17%) | 0.350 | |
| 9 (43%) | 1 (17%) | 0.363 | |
| 4 (19%) | 1 (17%) | 1.000 |
Baseline characteristics of treated patients with isolated ICA occlusion and ICA-MCA tandem occlusion.
| Characteristics | Isolated ICA occlusion IVT (n = 10) | Isolated ICA occlusion IVT/EVT (n = 12) | P Value | ICA-MCA Occlusion IVT (n = 13) | ICA-MCA Occlusion IVT/EVT (n = 16) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 (50%) | 8 (67%) | 0.666 | 5 (39%) | 7 (44%) | 1.000 | |
| 76 (70–84) | 64 (57–76) | 0.111 | ||||
| 13 (8–18) | 12 (5–17) | 0.792 | 17 (15–19) | 15 (11–17) | 0.17 | |
| 10 (100%) | 9 (75%) | 0.221 | 11 (85%) | 12 (75%) | 0.663 | |
| 2 (20%) | 3 (25%) | 1.0 | 1 (8%) | 1 (6%) | 1.0 | |
| 4 (40%) | 3 (25%) | 0.652 | 9 (69%) | 5 (31%) | 0.066 | |
| 5 (50%) | 7 (58%) | 1.0 | 8 (61%) | 8 (50%) | 0.711 | |
| 1 (10%) | 4 (33%) | 0.323 | 2 (15%) | 3 (19%) | 1.000 | |
| 3 (30%) | 2 (17%) | 0.624 | 3 (23%) | 0 (0%) | 0.078 | |
| 1 (10%) | 1 (8%) | 1.0 | 4 (31%) | 1 (6%) | 0.144 | |
| 0 | 0 | - | 9(69%) | 8(50%) | 0.451 | |
| 2 (20%) | 2 (17%) | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | - | |
| 0 | 0 | - | 4 (31%) | 8(50%) | 0.451 | |
| 88 (74–236) | 80 (64–149) | 0.390 | 115 (96–129), | 89 (47–144) | 0.255 | |
| Not applicable | 162 (128–264) | - | Not applicable | 177 (125–250) | ||