4.7 Article

Blood Pressure and Outcome After Mechanical Thrombectomy With Successful Revascularization A Multicenter Study

期刊

STROKE
卷 50, 期 9, 页码 2448-2454

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.024687

关键词

blood pressure; cerebral hemorrhage; hemorrhage; reperfusion; stroke; thrombectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose- Successful reperfusion can be achieved in more than two-thirds of patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy. Therefore, it is important to understand the effect of blood pressure (BP) on clinical outcomes after successful reperfusion. In this study, we investigated the relationship between BP on admission and during the first 24 hours after successful reperfusion with clinical outcomes. Methods- This was a multicenter study from 10 comprehensive stroke centers. To ensure homogeneity of the studied cohort, we included only patients with anterior circulation who achieved successful recanalization at the end of procedure. Clinical outcomes included 90-day modified Rankin Scale, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), mortality, and hemicraniectomy. Results- A total of 1245 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 69 +/- 14 years, and 51% of patients were female. Forty-nine percent of patients had good functional outcome at 90-days, and 4.7% suffered sICH. Admission systolic BP (SBP), mean SBP, maximum SBP, SBP SD, and SBP range were associated with higher risk of sICH. In addition, patients in the higher mean SBP groups had higher rates of sICH. Similar results were found for hemicraniectomy. With respect to functional outcome, mean SBP, maximum SBP, and SBP range were inversely associated with the good outcome (modified Rankin Scale score, 0-2). However, the difference in SBP parameters between the poor and good outcome groups was modest. Conclusions- Higher BP within the first 24 hours after successful mechanical thrombectomy was associated with a higher likelihood of sICH, mortality, and requiring hemicraniectomy.

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