4.7 Article

Safety and efficacy of remote ischemic postconditioning after thrombolysis in patients with stroke

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 95, 期 24, 页码 E3355-E3363

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000010884

关键词

-

资金

  1. Clinical Research Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University [XJTU1AF-CRF-2018-015, XJTU1AF-CRF-2016-013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine the effect of remote ischemic postconditioning (RIPC) on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) undergoing IV thrombolysis (IVT). Methods A single-center randomized controlled trial was performed with patients with AIS receiving IVT. Patients in the RIPC group were administered RIPC treatment (after IVT) during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was a score of 0 or 1 on the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at day 90. The safety, tolerability, and neuroprotection biomarkers associated with RIPC were also evaluated. Results We collected data from both the RIPC group (n = 34) and the control group (n = 34). The average duration of hospitalization was 11.2 days. There was no significant difference between 2 groups at admission for the NIH Stroke Scale score (p = 0.364) or occur-to-treatment time (p = 0.889). Favorable recovery (mRS score 0-1) at 3 months was obtained in 71.9% of patients in the RIPC group vs 50.0% in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 9.85, 95% confidence interval 1.54-63.16; p = 0.016). We further found significantly lower plasma S100-beta (p = 0.007) and higher vascular endothelial growth factor (p = 0.003) levels in the RIPC group than in the control group. Conclusions Repeated RIPC combined with IVT can significantly facilitate recovery of nerve function and improve clinical prognosis of patients with AIS. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03218293. Classification of evidence This study provides Class IV evidence that RIPC after tissue plasminogen activator treatment of AIS significantly increases the proportion of patients with an MRS score of 0 or 1 at 90 days.

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

4.7
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