【摘要】：目的 探討心源性卒中患者重組組織型纖溶酶原激活劑(rt-PA)靜脈溶栓后血管再通、缺血組織再灌注及3個月預后的神經(jīng)功能結(jié)局的影響。 方法 回顧性分析浙江大學醫(yī)學院附屬第二醫(yī)院神經(jīng)內(nèi)科2009年6月至2014年1月期間接受rt-PA靜脈溶栓治療,并在溶栓前后均接受多模式頭顱磁共振(MRP)掃描的缺血性卒中患者臨床及影像學資料。根據(jù)動脈閉塞評分(Arterial occlusive lesion scale, AOL)評價溶栓后血管再通情況。以腦血流達峰時間(Time to peak, Tmax)6s區(qū)域為組織低灌注區(qū),將溶栓后24h這一區(qū)域縮減60%定義為溶栓后再灌注。按中國缺血性卒中亞型分類(Chinese ischemic stroke subclassification, CISS)分型將入組患者分為心源性卒中與非心源性卒中組,比較兩組患者的臨床特點和溶栓后血管再通、組織再灌注及3個月臨床預后的差異。 結(jié)果 共76例患者納入分析,心源性卒中40例(52.6%),其中房顫者37例(92.5%)。心源性卒中與非心源性卒中組相比,既往吸煙史者較少(17.5%vs.50%,χ2=9.066,P=0.003),同型半胱氨酸水平較低(13.4±5.9vs.19.0±11.9umol/L, t=2.613,P=0.016),但兩組間溶栓后血管再通率、再灌注率及3月床預后無統(tǒng)計學差異。心源性卒中與非心源性卒中兩組出血轉(zhuǎn)化無明顯差異(34.6%vs.38.7%, x2=0.102,P=0.750)。影響血管再通的獨立因素為：大動脈粥樣硬化性卒中(OR=0.292,95%CI=0.088～0.966, P=0.044);溶栓后組織再灌注的獨立影響因素為女性(OR=0.081,95%CI=0.013～0.514, P=0.008)和血管再通(OR=29.39,95%CI=4.534～190.521, P=0.000)。影響缺血性卒中3個月預后的獨立因素為女性(OR=0.138,95%CI=0.020～0.944, P=0.044),基線NIHSS (OR=0.610,95%CI=0.459～0.812, P=0.001)及血管再通(OR=47.567,95%CI=3.904～579.546, P=0.002).影響心源性卒中3月后預后因素為基線NIHSS (OR=0.7198,95%CI=0.569～0.909, P=0.006)。 結(jié)論 心源性卒中并不影響靜脈溶栓后血管再通和組織再灌注。心源性卒中患者的3月臨床結(jié)局不劣于非心源性卒中。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the effects of intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) on vascular recanalization, ischemic tissue reperfusion and 3-month prognosis in patients with cardiogenic apoplexy. Methods from June 2009 to January 2014, the Department of Neurology of the second affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University Medical College was treated with rt-PA intravenous thrombolytic therapy. The clinical and imaging data of ischemic stroke patients underwent multi-mode magnetic resonance imaging (MRP) before and after thrombolysis. The recanalization of blood vessels after thrombolysis was evaluated according to the arterial occlusion score (Arterial occlusive lesion scale, AOL). The peak time of cerebral blood flow (Time to peak, Tmax) 6s) was taken as tissue low perfusion area, and the area reduced by 60% at 24h after thrombolysis was defined as reperfusion after thrombolysis. The patients were divided into cardiac stroke group and non-cardiogenic stroke group according to the (Chinese ischemic stroke subclassification, CISS) classification of Chinese ischemic stroke subtype. The clinical characteristics and vascular recanalization after thrombolysis were compared between the two groups. The difference of clinical prognosis between tissue reperfusion and 3 months. Results among 76 patients, 40 (52.6%) were cardiogenic apoplexy, and 37 (92.5%) were atrial fibrillation. Compared with the non-cardiogenic stroke group, the previous smoking history was lower (17.5% vs. 50%, 蠂 2 = 9.06 6, P < 0.003), and homocysteine level was lower (13.4 鹵5.9vs.19.0 鹵11.9umol / L, t = 2.613, P = 0.016), compared with the non-cardiogenic stroke group (17.5% vs. 50%, 蠂 2 = 9.06 6, P = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference in vascular recanalization rate, reperfusion rate and 3-month bed prognosis between the two groups. There was no significant difference between cardiac stroke group and non-cardiogenic stroke group (34.6% vs. 38.7%, x2 / 0.102, P = 0.750). The independent factors influencing vascular recanalization were as follows: great atherosclerotic stroke (OR=0.292,95%CI=0.088~0.966, P0. 044); The independent influencing factors of tissue reperfusion after thrombolysis were female (OR=0.081,95%CI=0.013~0.514, P0. 008) and vascular recanalization (OR=29.39,95%CI=4.534~190.521, P0. 000). The independent factors influencing the 3-month prognosis of ischemic stroke were female (OR=0.138,95%CI=0.020~0.944, P0. 044), baseline NIHSS (OR=0.610,95%CI=0.459~0.812, P0. 001) and recanalization (OR=47.567,95%CI=3.904~579.546,). (P = 0.002). Baseline NIHSS (OR=0.7198,95%CI=0.569~0.909, P = 0.006) was the prognostic factor after 3 months of cardiogenic stroke. Conclusion Cardiogenic stroke does not affect vascular recanalization and tissue reperfusion after intravenous thrombolysis. The 3-month clinical outcome of patients with cardiogenic stroke was no worse than that of non-cardiogenic stroke.
【學位授予單位】：浙江大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：R743.3

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳輝,左鷹,張麗坤;老年急性心肌梗死靜脈溶栓治療臨床觀察[J];中國煤炭工業(yè)醫(yī)學雜志;2000年05期

2 宋玉紅,李宏偉,王聰玲;老年急性心肌梗死靜脈溶栓治療的臨床觀察[J];中原醫(yī)刊;2001年09期

3 田聲放,許密如,韓魯閩,李坤,于珍芳,于平,王建平;高齡急性心肌梗死患者的靜脈溶栓治療[J];青島醫(yī)藥衛(wèi)生;2001年03期

4 熊長明,陳白屏;重組組織型纖溶酶原激活劑靜脈溶栓致嚴重低血壓一例[J];中華內(nèi)科雜志;2002年11期

5 鄭剛,王靜,劉兆昶,黃自平,王琨;靜脈溶栓治療老年急性心肌梗死的近期療效觀察[J];臨床內(nèi)科雜志;2002年01期

6 汪蔚青,金惠根,陳萬春,尚孝堂,楊偉,劉宗軍,王東毅,施佳,歐少君,江蓓湖;ST段抬高急性心肌梗死早期靜脈溶栓治療的探討[J];介入放射學雜志;2003年S1期

7 陳雪芹;徐瑾媛;王瓊;;老年急性心肌梗死靜脈溶栓并發(fā)癥觀察與護理[J];兵團醫(yī)學;2004年02期

8 鄭明日;李東原;;早期靜脈溶栓治療老年急性心肌梗死[J];吉林醫(yī)學;2006年09期

9 張志友;李雪芹;謝秀蓮;;老年人急性心肌梗死院前靜脈溶栓的臨床觀察[J];中國冶金工業(yè)醫(yī)學雜志;2006年05期

10 李靜;李秀霞;;高齡急性心肌梗死患者靜脈溶栓護理[J];醫(yī)藥論壇雜志;2006年21期

相關(guān)會議論文 前10條

1 王衛(wèi);李斌;王圣;;靜脈溶栓治療急性ST段抬高心肌梗死的療效觀察[A];第十三次全國心血管病學術(shù)會議論文集[C];2011年

2 謝苗;;急性心肌梗死靜脈溶栓治療的護理與觀察[A];第七屆全國老年醫(yī)學學術(shù)會議暨海內(nèi)外華人老年醫(yī)學學術(shù)會議論文匯編[C];2004年

3 劉曉紅;;急性心肌梗死靜脈溶栓治療的臨床觀察和護理[A];全國內(nèi)科護理學術(shù)交流暨專題講座會議、全國心臟內(nèi)、外科�？谱o理學術(shù)會議論文匯編[C];2007年

4 張德森;;急性心肌梗塞早期靜脈溶栓和院前溶栓治療——附4例報告(1例為院前溶栓)[A];中華醫(yī)學會全國第五次急診醫(yī)學學術(shù)會議論文集[C];1994年

5 鄧e，

本文編號：2440713