Yunzhen Hu1, Chunmei Ji2. 1. Department of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 1504039@zju.edu.cn. 2. Research Division of Clinical Pharmacology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke with atrial fibrillation (AF) is still controversial. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of all relevant studies, retrieved through systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to December 31, 2019. Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-1 at 90 days, mRS of 0-2 at 90 days, overall mortality, and incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) were collected as outcome measures. Fixed- and random-effects meta-analytical models were applied, and between-study heterogeneity was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 8509 patients were enrolled in 18 studies. A comparison of IVT treatment in AF versus non-AF patients showed that AF was associated with a significantly lower proportion of patients with mRS of 0-1 (24.1% vs. 34.5%; OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.43-0.81; P < 0.001), mRS of 0-2 (33.6% vs. 47.8%; OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.43-0.70; P < 0.001), as well as significantly higher mortality (19.4% vs. 11.5%; OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.79-2.36; P < 0.001) and higher incidence of sICH (6.4% vs. 4.1%; OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.27-2.01; P < 0.001). A comparison of AF patients who were subjected or not to IVT showed that thrombolysis carried a higher risk of sICH (5.7% vs. 1.6%; OR 3.44; 95% CI 2.04-5.82; P < 0.001) and was not associated with a better prognosis. Subgroup analysis in prospective studies also suggested a poorer functional prognosis and higher mortality in AF patients treated with IVT compared with those who did not receive IVT. Some heterogeneity was present in this meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Acute IS patients with AF had worse outcomes than those without AF after thrombolytic therapy, and had a higher incidence of sICH after thrombolysis than those without thrombolysis. Thrombolysis in ischemic stroke patients with AF should be carefully considered based on clinical factors such as NIHSS score, age, and the type of AF.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke with atrial fibrillation (AF) is still controversial. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of all relevant studies, retrieved through systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to December 31, 2019. Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-1 at 90 days, mRS of 0-2 at 90 days, overall mortality, and incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) were collected as outcome measures. Fixed- and random-effects meta-analytical models were applied, and between-study heterogeneity was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 8509 patients were enrolled in 18 studies. A comparison of IVT treatment in AF versus non-AFpatients showed that AF was associated with a significantly lower proportion of patients with mRS of 0-1 (24.1% vs. 34.5%; OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.43-0.81; P < 0.001), mRS of 0-2 (33.6% vs. 47.8%; OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.43-0.70; P < 0.001), as well as significantly higher mortality (19.4% vs. 11.5%; OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.79-2.36; P < 0.001) and higher incidence of sICH (6.4% vs. 4.1%; OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.27-2.01; P < 0.001). A comparison of AFpatients who were subjected or not to IVT showed that thrombolysis carried a higher risk of sICH (5.7% vs. 1.6%; OR 3.44; 95% CI 2.04-5.82; P < 0.001) and was not associated with a better prognosis. Subgroup analysis in prospective studies also suggested a poorer functional prognosis and higher mortality in AFpatients treated with IVT compared with those who did not receive IVT. Some heterogeneity was present in this meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Acute IS patients with AF had worse outcomes than those without AF after thrombolytic therapy, and had a higher incidence of sICH after thrombolysis than those without thrombolysis. Thrombolysis in ischemic strokepatients with AF should be carefully considered based on clinical factors such as NIHSS score, age, and the type of AF.
Authors: Jukka T Saarinen; Harri Rusanen; Niko Sillanpää; Heini Huhtala; Heikki Numminen; Irina Elovaara Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2014-08-23 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Daniel Sanák; Roman Herzig; Michal Král; Andrea Bártková; Jana Zapletalová; Martin Hutyra; David Skoloudík; Ivanka Vlachová; Tomás Veverka; David Horák; Petr Kanovský Journal: J Neurol Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Erich Bluhmki; Angel Chamorro; Antoni Dávalos; Thomas Machnig; Christophe Sauce; Nils Wahlgren; Joanna Wardlaw; Werner Hacke Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2009-10-21 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Naja E Vinding; Søren L Kristensen; Rasmus Rørth; Jawad H Butt; Lauge Østergaard; Jonas B Olesen; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Gunnar H Gislason; Lars Køber; Christina Kruuse; Søren P Johnsen; Emil L Fosbøl Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 6.106