4.0 Article

Intra-arterial Tirofiban Infusion for Partial Recanalization with Stagnant Flow in Hyperacute Cerebral Ischemic Stroke

期刊

INTERVENTIONAL NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 442-451

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/159101991101700408

关键词

acute ischemic stroke; reocclusion; endovascular treatment; tirofiban

资金

  1. Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early reocclusion is a major concern associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients with an ischemic cerebral stroke. This occurs most frequently in patients with partial initial recanalization. This study focuses on partial recanalization with stagnant antegrade flow after intravenous (IV) tPA or spontaneously, treated with the administration of intra-arterial (IA) tirofiban. Three patients with initial M1 occlusion on diagnostic studies had an occluded segment that was recanalized with stagnant flow after IV tPA or spontaneously. In all cases, IA tirofiban was administrated. We evaluated the distal blood flow and the degree of vascular narrowing in the pre and post-procedure angiography and at follow-up in addition to the clinical status. In all patients, severe vascular narrowing with stagnation of blood flow was detected in the initial M1 After infusion of IA tirofiban, improvement of the distal blood flow was achieved rapidly within 40 minutes in all patients. The severe vascular narrowing resolved rapidly in two patients without residual stenosis. In one patient, moderate vascular narrowing was still present. The median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores were 18 and the median post-procedural NIHSS scores were 2 at two weeks. No intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in any of the patients. Treatment with IA tirofiban was safe and effective in patients with partial initial recanalization. It can be suggested that detection of any partial recanalization is time for administration of glycoprotein IIb-IIIa receptor inhibitor in hyperacute ischemic stroke.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据