第二军医大学学报  2018, Vol. 39 Issue (9): 1023-1027   PDF    
静脉溶栓治疗后不明原因早期神经功能恶化相关因素和临床特征分析
黄石仁, 沈红健, 邢鹏飞, 沈芳, 张永巍, 吴涛, 邓本强     
海军军医大学(第二军医大学)长海医院脑血管病中心, 上海 200433
摘要: 目的 探讨急性缺血性脑卒中(AIS)患者行静脉溶栓治疗后不明原因早期神经功能恶化(END)的相关因素及临床特征。方法 纳入2016年1月至2018年2月于我院脑血管病中心连续登记的发病4.5 h内接受单纯重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(rt-PA)静脉溶栓治疗的AIS患者。不明原因END定义为发病24 h内美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分较基线增加≥4分,且影像学检查未发现确切机制。比较不明原因END与无END AIS患者的一般资料和治疗前临床数据,同时分析不明原因END AIS患者的临床特征。结果 纳入患者258例,其中无END患者243例(94.2%),不明原因END患者15例(5.8%)。相比无END患者,不明原因END患者中糖尿病比例高,入院至静脉溶栓时间(DNT)长,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=6.093,P=0.048;Z=2.055,P=0.040)。15例不明原因END患者溶栓前NIHSS评分较低[5(4,9)分],急性脑卒中Org 10172治疗试验(TOAST)分型以小动脉闭塞最多(11例,73.3%),梗死部位以内囊后肢(6例,40.0%)和脑桥腹内侧(6例,40.0%)最多。结论 糖尿病、DNT延长可能是AIS患者静脉溶栓治疗后发生不明原因END的危险因素。不明原因END常见于小动脉闭塞AIS,NIHSS评分较低,梗死部位主要为内囊后肢和脑桥腹内侧。
关键词: 急性缺血性脑卒中     早期神经功能恶化     静脉溶栓疗法     危险因素    
Related factors and clinical feature analysis of unexplained early neurological deterioration after intravenous thrombolysis
HUANG Shi-ren, SHEN Hong-jian, XING Peng-fei, SHEN Fang, ZHANG Yong-wei, WU Tao, DENG Ben-qiang     
Stroke Center, Changhai Hospital, Navy Medical University(Second Military Medical University), Shanghai 200433, China
Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (31370810, 30973102, 81501008) and Medical Guiding Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Committee (124119a8900).
Abstract: Objective To investigate the related factors and clinical features of unexplained early neurological deterioration (END) of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients after intravenous thrombolysis. Methods A total of 258 AIS patients, who underwent intravenous thrombolysis treatment within 4.5 h of onset and were registered continuously in Stroke Center of our hospital between Jan. 2016 and Feb. 2018, were included in this study. The unexplained END was defined as the National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) score increasing by more than 4 within 24 h of onset compared with that before thrombolysis, with no definite mechanism by imaging examination. The baseline and clinical data were compared between the unexplained END and non-END patients. The clinical features of the AIS patients with unexplained END were analyzed. Results Among the 258 patients enrolled in this study, 243 (94.2%) had no END and 15 (5.8%) had unexplained END. Compared with the patients without END, the proportion of diabetes mellitus in the patients with unexplained END was significantly higher and the door-to-needle time (DNT) was significantly longer (χ2=6.093, P=0.048; Z=2.055, P=0.040). The NIHSS score of 15 patients with unexplained END before thrombolysis was low (5[4, 9]). The most common type of trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) classification was small artery occlusion (11 cases, 73.3%). The most common infarction sites were posterior limb of internal capsule (6 cases, 40.0%) and ventromedial pons (6 cases, 40.0%). Conclusion Diabetes mellitus and long DNT may be the risk factors of unexplained END in the patients with AIS after intravenous thrombolysis. Unexplained END usually occurs in the AIS patinets with small artery occlusion and has lower NIHSS score; the common sites of infarction are posterior limb of the internal capsule and ventromedial pons.
Key words: acute ischemic stroke     early neurological deterioration     intravenous thrombolytic therapy     risk factors    

急性缺血性脑卒中(acute ischemic stroke,AIS)是最常见脑血管病类型,具有高致残率、高死亡率及高复发率的特点[1]。对于发病4.5 h内AIS患者行重组组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(recombinant tissue plasminogen activator,rt-PA)静脉溶栓治疗是公认的有效方法[2-5]。静脉溶栓治疗后最初24 h内临床转归仍然不可预知,虽然部分患者症状改善,但也有患者出现早期神经功能恶化(early neurological deterioration,END)。除了明确的原因,如症状性颅内出血、恶性水肿和早期复发性脑卒中,仍有一些END原因未明,也没有明确的发病机制。本研究选取我院2016年1月至2018年2月收治的258例接受单纯rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗的AIS患者,探讨静脉溶栓治疗后不明原因END的临床特征和影响因素。

1 资料和方法 1.1 研究对象

选取我院脑血管病中心2016年1月至2018年2月连续登记的发病4.5 h内接受单纯rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗的AIS患者,诊断符合《中国急性缺血性脑卒中诊治指南2010》标准[6]。纳入标准:(1)年龄为18~80岁,发病3 h内患者无年龄限制;(2)临床诊断为AIS,并且未发生END或发生不明原因END;(3)患者或家属知情同意。排除标准:(1)近3个月内头部创伤或脑卒中史;(2)近7 d内不可压迫部位的动脉穿刺史,近期颅内或椎管内手术史;(3)颅内出血、颅内新生物、动静脉畸形或动脉瘤;(4)血压升高[收缩压>185 mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa),舒张压>110 mmHg]; (5)活动性出血或急性出血倾向,包括血小板计数<100×109/L;(6)近48 h内行肝素治疗或活化部分凝血活酶时间(activated partial thromboplastin time,APTT)异常增高至超过正常上限(正常参考值为31.5~43.5 s);近期使用抗凝剂,国际标准化比值(international normalized ratio,INR)>1.7或凝血酶原时间>15 s;(7)血糖水平<2.7 mmol/L;(8)计算机断层扫描(computed tomography,CT)示多个脑梗死灶(低密度范围超过大脑半球的1/3)。本研究通过我院医学伦理委员会审批。

1.2 研究方法

根据静脉溶栓治疗后END发生情况,将患者分为无END组和不明原因END组。所有患者在给予静脉注射rt-PA前进行美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(National Institutes of Health stroke scale,NIHSS)评分、实验室检查(血常规、凝血时间、血糖、肾功能、电解质)以及头颅CT或计算机断层扫描血管成像(computed tomography angiography,CTA)检查。记录溶栓后及溶栓后24 h内NIHSS评分。收集患者的性别、年龄、发病至治疗时间(onset-to-treatment time,OTT)、入院至静脉溶栓时间(door-to-needle time,DNT)、NIHSS评分、血糖水平等数据,以及是否有高血压病、糖尿病、心房颤动、吸烟等病史。

1.3 不明原因END

END是指静脉溶栓治疗后24 h内NIHSS评分较基线增加≥4分或患者死亡[7]。根据脑卒中溶栓安全实施-监测研究(Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-MOnitoring STudy,SITS-MOST)标准和恶化时的影像学表现,将欧洲急性脑卒中协作研究(European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study,ECASS)分型为脑实质出血2型且NIHSS评分较基线增加≥4分定义为症状性颅内出血。如果出现脑水肿伴中线移位且意识恶化,考虑恶性脑水肿。早期缺血性脑卒中复发定义为出现新的神经功能缺损,并且影像学检查证实相应梗死灶由原来未受影响的血管导致,除外动脉再闭塞、原位血栓的近端延伸或远端栓塞所致缺血性脑卒中[8-9]。不明原因END定义为除外症状性颅内出血、恶性脑水肿、早期缺血性脑卒中复发或其他明确潜在诱发性并发症(如脑卒中后癫)而出现的END。

1.4 统计学处理

采用SPSS 19.0软件进行统计学处理。正态分布计量资料以x±s表示,组间比较采用两独立样本t检验;非正态分布计量资料以中位数(下四分位数,上四分位数)表示,组间比较采用两独立样本的Mann-Whitney U检验;计数资料以例数和百分数表示,组间比较采用χ2检验。检验水准(α)为0.05。

2 结果

纳入发病4.5 h内接受单纯rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗的AIS患者272例,溶栓后24 h内发生END 29例(10.7%),其中症状性颅内出血11例(4.0%),恶性脑水肿3例(1.1%)。最终本研究纳入患者258例,男156例、女102例;年龄为21~83岁,平均为(64.98±10.65)岁;高血压病175例(67.8%),糖尿病81例(31.4%),心房颤动35例(13.6%),吸烟史86例(33.3%);中位OTT为139(100,191)min,中位DNT为32(25,43)min;基线NIHSS评分为4(2,9)分。无END组243例(94.2%),不明原因END组15例(5.8%),两组患者的相关参数分析结果见表 1。相比无END患者,不明原因END患者中糖尿病比例高、DNT长,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=6.093,P=0.048;Z=2.055,P=0.040);而两组患者在性别、年龄、高血压病、急性脑卒中Org 10172治疗试验(Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment,TOAST)分型等方面差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。15例不明原因END患者的临床特征见表 2,溶栓前NIHSS评分为5(4,9)分,溶栓后NIHSS评分为5(2,6)分,溶栓后24 h NIHSS评分为12(9,15)分。

表 1 无END与不明原因END急性缺血性脑卒中患者的临床资料 Tab 1 Clinical characteristics of acute ischemic stroke patients with unexplained END or without END

表 2 15例不明原因END急性缺血性脑卒中患者的临床数据 Tab 2 Clinical data of 15 acute ischemic stroke patients with unexplained END

3 讨论

END是AIS患者行静脉溶栓治疗后的严重临床事件之一,其发生率不低,且与临床预后相关。国外临床研究报道AIS患者中END发生率为8.1%~28.1%[10],本研究中其发生率为10.7%(29/272)。4.0%(11/272)的患者发生症状性颅内出血,与欧洲的SITS-MOST报道结果[11]类似。没有患者因近期缺血性脑卒中再发而出现END,与既往报道的发生率较低[8-9]一致。重要的是,15例行rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗患者发生了不明原因END,占所有END患者的51.7%,由于既往相关研究甚少,因此无法进行进一步比较。

本研究发现,糖尿病可能是发生不明原因END的危险因素,推测原因可能有:(1)高血糖导致脑无氧糖酵解、氧自由基水平增加,脑组织内乳酸堆积,使缺血半暗带发生低灌注,而在轻度低灌注脑组织区细胞代谢发生紊乱,最终导致脑组织发生坏死,临床症状加重[12]。(2)高血糖有促进血栓形成及延伸的作用,能抑制rt-PA静脉溶栓治疗后的血管再通[13]。(3)糖尿病患者存在不同程度的血管损害,血管调节能力和耐受性较差,梗死部位不利于建立新的侧支循环。虽然2010年McCormick等[14]报道了胰岛素治疗能显著改善脑组织乳酸增加的情况,但不能阻止缺血性脑卒中进展。

虽然仅缩短DNT对静脉溶栓治疗效果无显著影响[15],但本研究结果显示,发生不明原因END的AIS患者的DNT较无END患者长,静脉溶栓治疗AIS患者DNT延长可能是发生不明原因END的危险因素。但目前尚无相关报道,其具体原因还需大样本研究证实。

本研究中,15例不明原因END患者静脉溶栓前NIHSS评分较低,与既往研究结果[16]相似。虽然NIHSS评分的机制已得到公认,但这些结果说明NIHSS评分本身存在的一种“天花板效应”,使高分无法进一步增加,同时也反映了轻型脑卒中患者END风险增加[17]。本研究中,不明原因END常见于小动脉闭塞AIS,责任血管为穿支,梗死部位主要为内囊后肢及脑桥腹内侧。具体机制不明,推测原因可能为这些部位终末穿支血管吻合支少,不利于建立侧支循环,易出现缺血缺氧,导致缺血性脑卒中加重[18]

本研究存在局限性。首先,本研究为单中心研究,且我院脑血管病中心为高级卒中中心,很多大动脉闭塞或心源性栓塞AIS患者进行了桥接治疗,可能出现患者的选择偏倚。其次,虽然静脉溶栓的样本量大,但发生不明原因END的AIS患者例数少,无法进行多因素回归分析。最后,影响因素中缺少实验室检查结果,得出的结论可能不够具体。

总之,AIS患者行静脉溶栓治疗后24 h内发生END多数原因不明,往往结局不良,临床上也无相关指南,故有必要进一步明确其发生机制以预防发生。目前临床上已经有加重后启动抗血小板治疗的报道和相关研究,但未纳入指南及临床广泛应用。如何确定AIS患者不明原因END的预测因素可能是未来研究的一个方向。

参考文献
[1]
COUTINHO J M, ZUURBIER S M, STAM J. Declining mortality in cerebral venous thrombosis:a systematic review[J]. Stroke, 2014, 45: 1338-1341. DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.004666
[2]
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke[J]. N Engl J Med, 1995, 333: 1581-1587. DOI:10.1056/NEJM199512143332401
[3]
HACKE W, KASTE M, BLUHMKI E, BROZMAN M, DÁVALOS A, GUIDETTI D, et al. Thrombolysis with alteplase 3 to 4.5 hours after acute ischemic stroke[J]. N Engl J Med, 2008, 359: 1317-1329. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa0804656
[4]
WAHLGREN N, AHMED N, DÁVALOS A, FORD G A, GROND M, HACKE W, et al. Thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke in the Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-Monitoring Study (SITS-MOST):an observational study[J]. Lancet, 2007, 369: 275-282. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60149-4
[5]
WAHLGREN N, AHMED N, DÁVALOS A, HACKE W, MILLÁN M, MUIR K, et al. 5 h after acute ischaemic stroke (SITS-ISTR):an observational study[J]. Lancet, 2008, 372: 1303-1309. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61339-2
[6]
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]. 中国医学前沿杂志(电子版), 2010, 2: 50-59, 69.
[7]
TISSERAND M, SENERS P, TURC G, LEGRAND L, LABEYRIE M A, CHARRON S, et al. Mechanisms of unexplained neurological deterioration after intravenous thrombolysis[J]. Stroke, 2014, 45: 3527-3534. DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.006745
[8]
GEORGIADIS D, ENGELTER S, TETTENBORN B, HUNGERBÜHLER H, LUETHY R, MÜLLER F, et al. Early recurrent ischemic stroke in stroke patients undergoing intravenous thrombolysis[J]. Circulation, 2006, 114: 237-241. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.597435
[9]
AWADH M, MACDOUGALL N, SANTOSH C, TEASDALE E, BAIRD T, MUIR K W. Early recurrent ischemic stroke complicating intravenous thrombolysis for stroke:incidence and association with atrial fibrillation[J]. Stroke, 2010, 41: 1990-1995. DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.569459
[10]
SENERS P, TURC G, OPPENHEIM C, BARON J C. Incidence, causes and predictors of neurological deterioration occurring within 24 h following acute ischaemic stroke:a systematic review with pathophysiological implications[J]. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2015, 86: 87-94. DOI:10.1136/jnnp-2014-308327
[11]
MAZYA M, EGIDO J A, FORD G A, LEES K R, MIKULIK R, TONI D, et al. Predicting the risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage in ischemic stroke treated with intravenous alteplase:Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke (SITS) symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage risk score[J]. Stroke, 2012, 43: 1524-1531. DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.644815
[12]
MIEDEMA I, LUIJCKX G J, BROUNS R, DE KEYSER J, UYTTENBOOGAART M. Admission hyperglycemia and outcome after intravenous thrombolysis: is there a difference among the stroke-subtypes?[J/OL]. Bmc Neurology, 2016, 16: 104. doi: 10.1186/s12883-016-0617-0.
[13]
RIBO M, MOLINA C, MONTANER J, RUBIERA M, DELGADO-MEDEROS R, ARENILLAS J F, et al. Acute hyperglycemia state is associated with lower tPA-induced recanalization rates in stroke patients[J]. Stroke, 2005, 36: 1705-1709. DOI:10.1161/01.STR.0000173161.05453.90.9f
[14]
MCCORMICK M, HADLEY D, MCLEAN J R, MACFARLANE J A, CONDON B, MUIR K W. Randomized, controlled trial of insulin for acute poststroke hyperglycemia[J]. Ann Neurol, 2010, 67: 570-578.
[15]
张敏敏, 吴雄枫, 陈蕾, 姜一, 朱宣, 张永巍, 等. 时间管理对急性缺血性脑卒中患者静脉溶栓效果的影响[J]. 第二军医大学学报, 2016, 37: 1206-1211.
ZHANG M M, WU X F, CHEN L, JIANG Y, ZHU X, ZHANG Y W, et al. Influence of time management on intravenous thrombolysis outcome in acute ischemic stroke[J]. Acad J Sec Mil Med Univ, 2016, 37: 1206-1211.
[16]
MORI M, NAGANUMA M, OKADA Y, HASEGAWA Y, SHIOKAWA Y, NAKAGAWARA J, et al. Early neurological deterioration within 24 hours after intravenous rt-PA therapy for stroke patients:the Stroke Acute Management with Urgent Risk Factor Assessment and Improvement rt-PA Registry[J]. Cerebrovasc Dis, 2012, 34: 140-146. DOI:10.1159/000339759
[17]
KIM J T, PARK M S, CHANG J, LEE J S, CHOI K H, CHO K H. Proximal arterial occlusion in acute ischemic stroke with low NIHSS scores should not be considered as mild stroke[J/OL]. PLoS One, 2013, 8: e70996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070996.
[18]
KIM Y B, MOON H S, SUH B C, PARK K Y, LEE Y T, CHUNG P W. Topographic patterns and stroke subtypes according to progressive motor deficits in lacunar syndrome[J]. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis, 2011, 20: 352-356. DOI:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2010.02.006