Outcome of patients with large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation and low NIHSS score
Background Optimal management of patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) and low NIHSS score is unknown, which was the aim to investigate in this study. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective single tertiary care centre 14-year cohort of patients with LVO in the anterior circul...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of neurology 2020-06, Vol.267 (6), p.1651-1662 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Optimal management of patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) and low NIHSS score is unknown, which was the aim to investigate in this study.
Methods
This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective single tertiary care centre 14-year cohort of patients with LVO in the anterior circulation and NIHSS score ≤ 5 on admission. Outcome was analysed according to primary intended therapy.
Results
Among 185 patients (median age 67.4 years), 52.4% received primary conservative therapy (including 26.8% secondary reperfusion in case of secondary neurological deterioration), 12.4% IV thrombolysis (IVT) only and 35.1% primary endovascular therapy (EVT). 95 (51.4%) patients experienced neurological deterioration until 3 months. Primary-IVT-only and primary-EVT compared to conservative-therapy patients had better 3 months’ outcome (54.5% vs. 30.8%:
adjusted
OR 6.02;
adjusted
p
= 0.004 for mRS 0–1 and 54.7% vs. 30.8%:
adjusted
OR 5.09;
adjusted
p
= 0.002, respectively). Also mRS shift analysis favored primary-IVT-only and primary-EVT patients (
adjusted
OR 6.25;
adjusted
p
= 0.001 and
adjusted
OR 3.14;
adjusted
p
= 0.003). Outcome in primary-IVT-only vs. primary-EVT patients did not differ significantly. Patients who received secondary EVT because of neurological deterioration after primary-conservative-therapy had worse 3 months’ outcome than primary-EVT patients (20.8% vs. 30.8%:
adjusted
OR 0.24;
adjusted
p
= 0.047 for mRS 0–1 and
adjusted
OR 0.31;
adjusted
p
= 0.019 in mRS shift analysis). Survival and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage did not differ amongst groups.
Conclusions
Our data indicate that primary IVT and/or EVT may be better than primary conservative therapy in patients with LVO in the anterior circulation and low NIHSS score. Furthermore, primary EVT was better than secondary EVT in case of neurological deterioration. There is an unmet need for RCTs to find the optimal therapy for this patient group. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0340-5354 1432-1459 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00415-020-09744-0 |