Please wait a minute...
浙江大学学报（医学版）
浙江大学学报（医学版）  2017, Vol. 46 Issue (4): 397-404    DOI: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2017.08.09
缺血性卒中专题     
急性缺血性卒中患者血管内治疗后应用替罗非班的安全性及预后分析
冯学问1,2, 陈智才1, 钟根龙1, 楼敏1
1. 浙江大学医学院附属第二医院神经内科, 浙江 杭州 310009;
2. 温岭市第一人民医院神经内科, 浙江 温岭 317500
Safety of tirofiban in patients with acute cerebral infarct receiving endovascular therapy
FENG Xuewen1,2, CHEN Zhicai1, ZHONG Genlong1, LOU Min1
1. Department of Neurology, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310009, China;
2. Department of Neurology, the First People's Hospital of Wenling, Wenling 317500, China
 全文: PDF(1051 KB)  
摘要：

目的：探讨急性缺血性卒中患者血管内治疗后使用替罗非班的安全性及预后分析。方法：回顾性分析2013年10月至2017年4月在浙江大学医学院附属第二医院接受静脉溶栓桥接动脉取栓或直接动脉取栓的急性缺血性卒中患者115例的临床资料。根据患者术后24 h内是否使用替罗非班治疗分为替罗非班组（30例）和对照组（85例）。参照欧洲协作性急性卒中研究（ECASS）Ⅱ标准评估24 h内的出血转化，治疗后3个月时改良Rankin量表（mRS）超过2分定义为预后不优。采用二元logistic回归分析治疗后使用替罗非班是否独立影响患者出血转化和3个月临床预后。结果：二元logistic回归分析提示，替罗非班治疗不增加出血转化的风险（OR=0.437，95%CI：0.168~1.132，P>0.05）；患者基线美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表（NIHSS）评分（OR=1.136，95%CI：1.014~1.273，P<0.05）、血管再通（OR=0.060，95%CI：0.010~0.365，P<0.01）、高血压（OR=4.233，95%CI：1.320~13.570，P<0.05）和起病至治疗时间（OR=1.006，95% CI：1.001~1.011，P<0.05）与临床预后不优独立相关，而替罗非班治疗与临床预后不优无独立相关性（OR=1.923，95%CI：0.536~6.568，P>0.05）。结论：急性缺血性卒中患者血管内治疗后使用替罗非班不会增加出血转化的风险。
关键词： 动脉闭塞性疾病/药物疗法;  脑缺血/治疗;  血栓溶解疗法;  酪氨酸/类似物和衍生物;  血小板膜糖蛋白类/拮抗剂和抑制剂;  出血/预防和控制;  预后    
Abstract:

Objective:To investigate the effect of tirofiban on hemorrhagic transformation and neurological outcome in patients with acute cerebral infarct treated with endovascular therapy. Methods:One hundred and fifteen patients with acute cerebral infarct who received endovascular stent mechanical thrombectomy in the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine during October 2013 and April 2017 were included in the study. Among 115 patients, 30 received tirofiban treatment. Hemorrhagic transformation and neurological outcomes were assessed using the ECASS Ⅱ criteria and modified Rankin scale (mRS), respectively. Unfavorable outcome was defined as mRS>2. Binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the independent predictors of hemorrhagic transformation and neurological outcome. Results:Binary logistic regression analysis showed that tirofiban treatment did not increase the risk of hemorrhagic transformation (OR=0.437, 95% CI:0.168-1.132, P>0.05); baseline NIHSS (OR=1.136, 95% CI:1.014-1.273, P<0.05), recanalization (OR=0.060, 95% CI:0.010-0.365, P<0.01), hypertension (OR=4.233, 95% CI:1.320-13.570, P<0.05) and onset to treatment time(OR=1.006, 95% CI:1.001-1.011, P<0.05) were independently associated with unfavorable outcome, while such association was not observed in tirofiban treatment (OR=1.923, 95% CI:0.536-6.568, P>0.05). Conclusion:Tirofiban appears to be safe for patients with acute cerebral infarct receiving endovascular therapy.
Key words: Arterial occlusive diseases/drug therapy    Brain ischemia/therapy    Thrombolytic therapy    Tyrosine/analogs &    derivatives    Platelet membrane glycoproteins/antagonists &    inhibitors    Hemorrhage/prevention &    control    Prognosis
收稿日期: 2017-03-17 出版日期: 2017-08-25
CLC:  R743.3  
基金资助:

国家自然科学基金（81471170，81622017）
通讯作者: 楼敏(1976-),女,博士,主任医师,教授,博士生导师,主要从事神经病学研究;E-mail:lm99@zju.edu.cn;http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6627-064X     E-mail: lm99@zju.edu.cn
作者简介: 冯学问(1978-),男,硕士研究生,副主任医师,主要从事神经病学研究;E-mail:wlyyfxw@163.com;http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7281-2970
服务　　
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章　　

引用本文:

冯学问 等. 急性缺血性卒中患者血管内治疗后应用替罗非班的安全性及预后分析[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(4): 397-404.

FENG Xuewen, CHEN Zhicai, ZHONG Genlong, LOU Min. Safety of tirofiban in patients with acute cerebral infarct receiving endovascular therapy. Journal of ZheJiang University(Medical Science), 2017, 46(4): 397-404.

链接本文:

http://www.zjujournals.com/xueshu/med/CN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2017.08.09    或    http://www.zjujournals.com/xueshu/med/CN/Y2017/V46/I4/397

[1] 中华医学会神经病学分会脑血管病学组急性缺血性脑卒中诊治指南撰写组.中国急性缺血性脑卒中诊治指南2010[J].中华神经科杂志,2010,43(2):146-153. Chinese Medical Association Neurology Branch for Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute ischemic stroke in China[J]. Chinese Journal of Neurology,2010,43(2):146-153. (in Chinese)
[2] 赵伟,侯延伟,张合亮,等.基底动脉闭塞患者静脉溶栓和联合机械取栓的差异性研究[J].中华老年心脑血管病杂志,2016,18(2):179-181. ZHAO Wei, HOU Yanwei, ZHANG Heliang, et al. Effect of intravenous thrombolysis and combined mechanical thrombectomy on basilar artery occlusion[J]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Heart Brain and Vessel Diseases,2016,18(2):179-181. (in Chinese)
[3] CAMPBELL B C, MITCHELL P J, KLEINIG T J, et al. Endovascular therapy for ischemic stroke with perfusion-imaging selection[J]. N Engl J Med,2015,372(11):1009-1018.
[4] 中国卒中学会重症脑血管病分会专家撰写组.急性缺血性脑卒中血管内治疗术后监护与管理中国专家共识[J].中华医学杂志,2017,97(3):162-172. Chinese Stroke Society of Critical Cerebrovascular Disease. Consultation and management of postoperative patients with acute ischemic stroke[J]. National Medical Journal of China,2017,97(3):162-172. (in Chinese)
[5] BAIK S K, OH S J, PARK K P, et al. Intra-arterial tirofiban infusion for partial recanalization with stagnant flow in hyperacute cerebral ischemic stroke[J]. Interv Neuroradiol,2011,17(4):442-451.
[6] JUNGHANS U, SEITZ R J, AULICH A, et al. Bleeding risk of tirofiban, a nonpeptide GPⅡb/Ⅲa platelet receptor antagonist in progressive stroke:an open pilot study[J]. Cerebrovasc Dis,2001,12(4):308-312.
[7] SEO J H, JEONG H W, KIM S T, et al. Adjuvant tirofiban injection through deployed solitaire stent as a rescue technique after failed mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke[J]. Neurointervention,2015,10(1):22-27.
[8] KELLERT L, HAMETNER C, ROHDE S, et al. Endovascular stroke therapy:tirofiban is associated with risk of fatal intracerebral hemorrhage and poor outcome[J]. Stroke,2013,44(5):1453-1455.
[9] 严慎强,毛颖盈,钟根龙,等.既往抗血小板治疗对合并颅内微出血急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓的安全性分析[J].浙江大学学报(医学版),2015,44(6):618-624. YAN Shenqiang, MAO Yingying, ZHONG Genlong, et al. Safety of intravenous thrombolysis in cerebral microbleeds patients with prior antiplatelet therapy[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University (Medical Sciences),2015,44(6):618-624. (in Chinese)
[10] VERGOUWEN M D, ALGRA A, PFEFFERKORN T, et al. Time is brain(stem) in basilar artery occlusion[J]. Stroke,2012,43(11):3003-3006.
[11] LARRUE V, VON K R R, MVLLER A, et al. Risk factors for severe hemorrhagic transformation in ischemic stroke patients treated with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator:a secondary analysis of the European-Australasian Acute Stroke Study (ECASS Ⅱ)[J]. Stroke,2001,32(2):438-441.
[12] CAMPBELL B C, CHRISTENSEN S, LEVI C R, et al. Comparison of computed tomography perfusion and magnetic resonance imaging perfusion-diffusion mismatch in ischemic stroke[J]. Stroke,2012,43(10):2648-2653.
[13] ROHDE S, HAEHNEL S, HERWEH C, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy in acute embolic stroke:preliminary results with the revive device[J]. Stroke,2011,42(10):2954-2956.
[14] LI W, LIN L, ZHANG M, et al. Safety and preliminary efficacy of early tirofiban treatment after alteplase in acute ischemic stroke patients[J]. Stroke,2016,47(10):2649-2651.
[15] 李坷,张继中,张钦昌.国产替罗非班在急性进展性缺血性卒中治疗中的应用[J].中国实用神经疾病杂志,2017,20(1):117-118. LI Ke, ZHANG Jizhong, ZHANG Qinchang. Application of domestic tirofiban in the treatment of acute progressive cerebral infarction[J]. Chinese Journal of Practical Nervous Diseases,2017,20(1):117-118. (in Chinese)
[16] SEITZ R J, MEISEL S, MOLL M, et al. The effect of combined thrombolysis with rtPA and tirofiban on ischemic brain lesions[J]. Neurology,2004,62(11):2110-2112.
[17] MALIK A M, VORA N A, LIN R, et al. Endovascular treatment of tandem extracranial/intracranial anterior circulation occlusions:preliminary single-center experience[J]. Stroke,2011,42(6):1653-1657.
[18] 张全新.急性缺血性卒中动脉溶栓与机械取栓后24 h内应用低分子肝素抗凝治疗的临床研究[J].泰山医学院学报,2014,35(6):485-488. ZHANG Quanxin. Clinical research of the effect of low molecule weight heparin anticoagulation within 24h on acute cerebral infarction patients treatedwith arterial thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy[J]. Journal of Taishan Medical College,2014,35(6):485-488. (in Chinese)
[19] 杜娟,崔永强,吴铮,等.急性缺血性卒中动脉内机械取栓困难的临床分析[J].中华外科杂志,2016,54(5):335-339. DU Juan, CUI Yonqiang, WU Zheng, et al. Clinical analysis of difficult intraarterial mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke[J]. Chinese Journal of Surgery,2016,54(5):335-339. (in Chinese)
[1] 潘静颖 等. PET-CT与乳腺癌分子病理分型、治疗反应及预后的相关性研究进展[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(5): 473-480.
[2] 胡静 等. 记忆T细胞在行放射治疗的非小细胞肺癌患者中的表达及其预后预测价值[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(5): 523-528.
[3] 李爱静 等. 动态增强磁共振成像参照物模型定量参数与乳腺癌预后因素及分子病理分型的关系[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(5): 505-510.
[4] 潘瑶 等. 胰腺癌的影像学精准诊断与评估[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(5): 462-467.
[5] 张美霞 等. 静脉溶栓获益的最大梗死体积阈值与急性缺血性卒中患者发病时间的关系[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(4): 384-389.
[6] 赖针珍 等. 动态CT血管造影评估急性基底动脉闭塞患者侧支血流与再灌注治疗预后的关系[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(4): 371-376.
[7] 王庆松 等. 基于CT灌注成像的侧支评分预测急性前循环大血管闭塞患者动脉取栓治疗预后的价值[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(4): 377-383.
[8] 张晓群 等. 不同药物洗脱支架对冠状动脉小血管病变患者预后影响的meta分析[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(3): 305-314.
[9] 姚国荣,傅云峰,李艳丽,周彩云,吕卫国. 卵巢上皮性癌组织中DNAJB11的表达及临床意义[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(2): 173-178.
[10] 姚国荣 等. 卵巢上皮性癌组织中DNAJB11的表达及临床意义[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(2): 173-178.
[11] 蔡成,王建平,钟志凤,戴志慧,王庆华,董武真,施红旗,刘庆伟,杜金林. 缺氧诱导因子1α和CD133预测直肠癌患者新辅助放化疗疗效的临床研究[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 46(1): 36-43.
[12] 杨肃文 等. 意义未明单克隆免疫球蛋白病及多发性骨髓瘤患者微RNA-221和微RNA-222的表达[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2016, 45(4): 371-378.
[13] 边薇 等. 临时血液透析对维持性腹膜透析患者生存预后的影响[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2016, 45(2): 195-200.
[14] 徐芳英 等. 神经内分泌分化在胃腺癌进展及患者预后中的意义[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2016, 45(1): 24-30.
[15] 徐超等. 磁敏感加权成像毛刷征预测急性缺血性卒中患者静脉溶栓后出血转化的意义[J]. 浙江大学学报（医学版）, 2015, 44(6): 625-631.