替奈普酶桥接治疗与阿替普酶桥接治疗对急性缺血性脑卒中的疗效比较

Tenecteplase bridging therapy versus alteplase bridging therapy in treating acute ischemic stroke

  • 摘要:
    目的 比较替奈普酶静脉溶栓联合血管内治疗与阿普替酶静脉溶栓联合血管内治疗对急性缺血性脑卒中(AIS)的效果。
    方法 将2021年1月—2022年10月在本院就诊的98例AIS患者随机分为阿普替酶组和替奈普酶组, 每组49例。阿普替酶组采用阿普替酶溶栓联合血管内治疗,替奈普酶组采用替奈普酶联合血管内治疗。比较2组一般临床资料; 比较2组溶栓前(T0)、溶栓后1 h(T1)、血管内治疗后24 h(T2)、血管内治疗后7 d(T3)、出院时(T4)的美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分; 比较2组T0、血管内治疗后30 d(T5)、血管内治疗后90 d(T6)的改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分及Barthel指数(BI)评分; 比较2组住院时间、并发症及临床疗效。
    结果 2组患者年龄、性别分布、体质量指数(BMI)、高血压、糖尿病、冠心病、抽烟、酗酒、脑梗死体积、梗死部位、临床分型等比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。与阿普替酶组相比,替奈普酶组T1、T2、T3、T4时NIHSS评分均较低,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。与阿普替酶组相比,替奈普酶组T5、T6时mRS评分均较低,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。与阿普替酶组相比,替奈普酶组T5、T6时BI评分均升高,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。与阿普替酶组相比,替奈普酶组住院时间较短,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05); 阿普替酶组治疗后发生并发症脑出血、消化道出血、皮肤口腔黏膜出血、房颤、低血压比率依次为10.20%、2.04%、8.16%、0%、8.16%, 替奈普酶组依次为2.04%、4.08%、6.12%、2.04%、4.08%; 与阿普替酶组相比,替奈普酶组治疗后脑出血发生率较低,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。阿普替酶组总有效率为85.71%, 低于替奈普酶组的91.84%, 差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。
    结论 与阿普替酶桥接治疗相比,替奈普酶桥接治疗临床效果更优,可在一定程度上改善缺血性脑卒中患者生活质量及预后,降低脑出血概率,提高临床疗效。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To compare the effects of intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase combined with endovascular treatment versus alteplase combined with endovascular treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS).
    Methods A total of 98 patients with AIS in the hospital from January 2021 to October 2022 were randomly divided into alteplase group and tenecteplase group, with 49 cases in each group. The alteplase group received alteplase thrombolysis combined with endovascular treatment, while the tenecteplase group received tenecteplase combined with endovascular treatment. General clinical materials were compared between the two groups; the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores at baseline (T0), 1 hour after thrombolysis (T1), 24 hours after endovascular treatment (T2), 7 days after endovascular treatment (T3), and at discharge (T4) were compared between two groups; the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores and Barthel index (BI) scores at T0, 30 days after endovascular treatment (T5), and 90 days after endovascular treatment (T6) were also compared between two groups; the length of hospital stay, occurrence of complications, and clinical efficacy were compared between the two groups.
    Results There were no significant differences in age, gender distribution, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease, smoking, alcoholism, cerebral infarction volume, infarction location, and clinical classification between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the alteplase group, the NIHSS scores at T1, T2, T3 and T4 were significantly lower in the tenecteplase group (P < 0.05). Similarly, the mRS scores at T5 and T6 were significantly lower while the BI scores at T5 and T6 were significantly higher in the tenecteplase group than the alteplase group (P < 0.05). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the tenecteplase group than the alteplase group (P < 0.05). The incidence rates of post-treatment complications such as cerebral hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, skin and oral mucosa bleeding, atrial fibrillation, and hypotension in the alteplase group were 10.20%, 2.04%, 8.16%, 0%, and 8.16% respectively, while those in the tenecteplase group were 2.04%, 4.08%, 6.12%, 2.04%, and 4.08% respectively; the incidence rate of cerebral hemorrhage in the tenecteplase group was significantly lower than the alteplase group (P < 0.05). The total effective rate was 85.71% in the alteplase group, which was significantly lower than the 91.84% in the tenecteplase group (P < 0.05).
    Conclusion Compared with alteplase bridging therapy, tenecteplase bridging therapy shows better clinical outcomes, which can improve the quality of life and prognosis of patients with AIS to a certain extent, reduce the probability of cerebral hemorrhage, and enhance clinical efficacy.

     

/

返回文章
返回