Yonggang Hao1,2, Zhizhong Zhang3, Hao Zhang3, Lili Xu3, Zusen Ye1, Qiliang Dai3, Xinfeng Liu1, Gelin Xu1. 1. Department of Neurology, Jinling Hospital, Southern Medical University, Suzhou, China. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China. 3. Department of Neurology, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Suzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intracranial hemorrhage is a major complication of endovascular treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Controlled clinical trials reported varied incidences of intracranial hemorrhage after endovascular treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate whether endovascular treatment, compared with medical treatment, increases the risk of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: The current publications on endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke were systematically reviewed. Rates of intracranial hemorrhage after endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke reported in controlled clinical trials were pooled and analyzed. Random and fixed-effect models were used to pool the outcomes. For analyzing their individual risks, intracranial hemorrhages after endovascular treatment were classified as symptomatic and asymptomatic. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 1,499 patients with endovascular treatment and 1,320 patients with medical treatment were included. After pooling the data, the risk of any intracranial hemorrhage was significantly higher in patients with endovascular treatment than in patients with medical treatment (35.0 vs. 19.0%, OR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.64-3.97, p < 0.00001). The risk of asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was also significantly higher in patients with endovascular treatment than in those with medical treatment (28 vs. 12%, OR = 3.16, 95% CI: 1.62-6.16, p < 0.001). However, the risks of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were similar in patients with endovascular treatment and in those with medical treatment (5.6 vs. 5.2%, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.79-1.50, p = 0.61). CONCLUSION: Although the risk of any intracranial hemorrhage may increase after endovascular treatment, the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage may remain similar as compared with medical treatment.
BACKGROUND:Intracranial hemorrhage is a major complication of endovascular treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Controlled clinical trials reported varied incidences of intracranial hemorrhage after endovascular treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate whether endovascular treatment, compared with medical treatment, increases the risk of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: The current publications on endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke were systematically reviewed. Rates of intracranial hemorrhage after endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke reported in controlled clinical trials were pooled and analyzed. Random and fixed-effect models were used to pool the outcomes. For analyzing their individual risks, intracranial hemorrhages after endovascular treatment were classified as symptomatic and asymptomatic. RESULTS: Eleven studies involving 1,499 patients with endovascular treatment and 1,320 patients with medical treatment were included. After pooling the data, the risk of any intracranial hemorrhage was significantly higher in patients with endovascular treatment than in patients with medical treatment (35.0 vs. 19.0%, OR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.64-3.97, p < 0.00001). The risk of asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was also significantly higher in patients with endovascular treatment than in those with medical treatment (28 vs. 12%, OR = 3.16, 95% CI: 1.62-6.16, p < 0.001). However, the risks of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were similar in patients with endovascular treatment and in those with medical treatment (5.6 vs. 5.2%, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.79-1.50, p = 0.61). CONCLUSION: Although the risk of any intracranial hemorrhage may increase after endovascular treatment, the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage may remain similar as compared with medical treatment.
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Wim H van Zwam; Diederik W J Dippel; Peter J Mitchell; Andrew M Demchuk; Antoni Dávalos; Charles B L M Majoie; Aad van der Lugt; Maria A de Miquel; Geoffrey A Donnan; Yvo B W E M Roos; Alain Bonafe; Reza Jahan; Hans-Christoph Diener; Lucie A van den Berg; Elad I Levy; Olvert A Berkhemer; Vitor M Pereira; Jeremy Rempel; Mònica Millán; Stephen M Davis; Daniel Roy; John Thornton; Luis San Román; Marc Ribó; Debbie Beumer; Bruce Stouch; Scott Brown; Bruce C V Campbell; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Jeffrey L Saver; Michael D Hill; Tudor G Jovin Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Mayank Goyal; Alain Bonafe; Hans-Christoph Diener; Elad I Levy; Vitor M Pereira; Gregory W Albers; Christophe Cognard; David J Cohen; Werner Hacke; Olav Jansen; Tudor G Jovin; Heinrich P Mattle; Raul G Nogueira; Adnan H Siddiqui; Dileep R Yavagal; Blaise W Baxter; Thomas G Devlin; Demetrius K Lopes; Vivek K Reddy; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Oliver C Singer; Reza Jahan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Ciccone; L Valvassori; M Ponzio; E Ballabio; R Gasparotti; M Sessa; F Scomazzoni; P Tiraboschi; R Sterzi Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2009-10-30 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Timothy J Kleinig; Helen M Dewey; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Bernard Yan; Richard J Dowling; Mark W Parsons; Thomas J Oxley; Teddy Y Wu; Mark Brooks; Marion A Simpson; Ferdinand Miteff; Christopher R Levi; Martin Krause; Timothy J Harrington; Kenneth C Faulder; Brendan S Steinfort; Miriam Priglinger; Timothy Ang; Rebecca Scroop; P Alan Barber; Ben McGuinness; Tissa Wijeratne; Thanh G Phan; Winston Chong; Ronil V Chandra; Christopher F Bladin; Monica Badve; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Henry Ma; Patricia M Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: W Hacke; M Kaste; C Fieschi; R von Kummer; A Davalos; D Meier; V Larrue; E Bluhmki; S Davis; G Donnan; D Schneider; E Diez-Tejedor; P Trouillas Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-10-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Chelsea S Kidwell; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey Gornbein; Jeffry R Alger; Val Nenov; Zahra Ajani; Lei Feng; Brett C Meyer; Scott Olson; Lee H Schwamm; Albert J Yoo; Randolph S Marshall; Philip M Meyers; Dileep R Yavagal; Max Wintermark; Judy Guzy; Sidney Starkman; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anna Rosell; Eloy Cuadrado; Arantxa Ortega-Aznar; Mar Hernández-Guillamon; Eng H Lo; Joan Montaner Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-03-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: William J Powers; Colin P Derdeyn; José Biller; Christopher S Coffey; Brian L Hoh; Edward C Jauch; Karen C Johnston; S Claiborne Johnston; Alexander A Khalessi; Chelsea S Kidwell; James F Meschia; Bruce Ovbiagele; Dileep R Yavagal Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 10.170
Authors: Sara Bernardo-Castro; João André Sousa; Ana Brás; Carla Cecília; Bruno Rodrigues; Luciano Almendra; Cristina Machado; Gustavo Santo; Fernando Silva; Lino Ferreira; Isabel Santana; João Sargento-Freitas Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Ronda Lun; Gregory B Walker; Adrien Guenego; Mohammed Kassab; Eduardo Portela; Vignan Yogendrakumar; George Medvedev; Ken Wong; Michel Shamy; Dar Dowlatshahi; Robert Fahed Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 4.003