4.1 Article

Blood pressure and collateral circulation in acute ischemic stroke

期刊

HERZ
卷 44, 期 5, 页码 455-459

出版社

URBAN & VOGEL
DOI: 10.1007/s00059-018-4691-5

关键词

Collateral blood circulation; Cerebrovascular stroke; Hypertension; Cerebral arteries; Carotid artery; internal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different blood pressure (BP) parameters on the collateral circulation in a retrospective cohort of patients with acute ischemic stroke and ipsilateral internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. Methods The degree of intracranial collaterals was graded according to the American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology/Society of Interventional Radiology (ASITN/SIR) Collateral Flow Grading System. At 12-72h after stroke onset, sixBP measurements were obtained in 124 patients with ICA occlusion. Baseline clinical and imaging characteristics were collected. Group comparisons were performed, and the collateral score (CS) was assessed and entered into a logistic regression analysis. Results In all, 80 (64.5%) patients displayed good collateral filling (CS >= 2). Good intracranial collaterals were more frequently associated with the development of collaterals in the anterior communicating artery, posterior communicating artery, and leptomeningeal artery. The systolic blood pressure (SBP; p= 0.018), diastolic blood pressure (DBP; p= 0.013), and mean arterial pressure (MAP; p= 0.016) were significantly associated with good CS. Median CS was highest when SBP was 120-130mm Hg (p= 0.034). Logistic regression analysis showed that hypertension (p= 0.026, OR: 0.380, 95% CI: 0.163-0.890) was a significant predictor of poor CS. Conclusion The development of collateral circulation in patients with acute ischemic stroke with ICA occlusion may be influenced by BP. A moderately decreased SBP is associated with good integrity of the collateral circulation in patients with acute ischemic stroke with occlusion of the ICA.

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

4.1
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