天津医药 ›› 2019, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (8): 847-850.doi: 10.11958/20181373

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

介入治疗与利伐沙班抗凝治疗对伴卵圆孔未闭的隐源性卒中患者长期疗效的比较

  

  1. 1 天津市胸科医院心外科(邮编300222);2 天津市环湖医院神经内科,3 超声科;4 天津市胸科医院影像科,5 超声科
  • 收稿日期:2018-09-11 修回日期:2019-05-19 出版日期:2019-08-15 发布日期:2019-08-16
  • 通讯作者: 张炜 E-mail:zhangwei2988@hotmail.com
  • 作者简介:1 天津市胸科医院心外科(邮编300222);2 天津市环湖医院神经内科,3 超声科;4 天津市胸科医院影像科,5 超声科

Comparison of long-term efficacy of rivaroxaban anticoagulant therapy and interventional therapy in cryptogenic stroke patients with patent foramen ovale

  1. 1 Department of Cardiac Surgery, Tianjin Chest Hospital, Tianjin 300222, China; 2 Department of Neurology,3 Department of Ultrasonography, Tianjin Huanhu Hospital; 4 Department of Imaging;5 Department of Ultrasonography, Tianjin Chest Hospital
  • Received:2018-09-11 Revised:2019-05-19 Published:2019-08-15 Online:2019-08-16

摘要: 摘要:目的 探讨介入治疗与利伐沙班抗凝治疗对伴卵圆孔未闭(PFO)的隐源性卒中患者预后的影响。方法 入选49例伴PFO的隐源性卒中患者随机分为介入治疗组(24例)和利伐沙班组(25例),前者接受经皮PFO封堵术;后者接受利伐沙班抗凝治疗(10 mg/d)。观察主要终点事件为再发非致死性的缺血性脑卒中(包括短暂性缺血发作)或致死性的脑卒中、早期死亡(放置器械后30 d或随机分组后45 d内)及次要终点事件为全因死亡、周围血管栓塞、新发生的心律失常(如房颤)、心肌梗死及出血等。结果 2组患者平均随访时间(3.5±0.5)年,随访期间利伐沙班组和介入治疗组的失访率分别为8.3%(2/25)和16.6%(4/24),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。介入治疗组再发非致死性的缺血性脑卒中(短暂性缺血发作)1例,利伐沙班组3例,2组均未出现致死性脑卒中及早期死亡。介入治疗组和利伐沙班组无主要疗效终点事件累积生存率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。介入治疗组新发房颤1例,房性早搏合并短阵房速者2例,但手术后24 h内均自发恢复为窦性心律;未出现心血管原因死亡、周围血管栓塞、心肌梗死及出血等事件。介入治疗组与利伐沙班组联合终点事件发生率分别为16.7%(4/24)、44%(11/25),累积生存率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组随访各时点NIHSS评分和mRS评分差异均无统计学意义。结论介入封堵治疗较利伐沙班治疗可更有效改善伴PFO的隐源性卒中患者的预后。

关键词: 卵圆孔, 未闭, 卒中, 利伐沙班, 预后, 隐源性, 介入治疗

Abstract: Abstract: Objective To investigate the effects of interventional therapy and rivaroxaban anticoagulant therapy on the prognosis of patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale (PFO). Methods A total of 49 PFO patients with cryptogenic stroke were enrolled. They were randomized into an interventional group (n=24) and a rivaroxaban treatment group (n=25). Patients in interventional group received percutaneous PFO closure, and the patients in rivaroxaban treatment group received rivaroxaban treatment (10 mg / d). The primary endpoints included recurrent nonfatal ischemic stroke (including transient ischemic attack) or fatal stroke, early death (within 30 days after placement of the instrument or within45 days after randomization), and the secondary endpoints included all-cause death, peripheral vascular embolism, newly occurring arrhythmias (such as atrial fibrillation), myocardial infarction and bleeding. Results The mean follow-up time was (3.5±0.5) years for the two groups of patients. During the follow-up period, the loss of follow-up rates were 8.3% (2/25) and 16.6% (4/24) in the rivaroxaban group and the intervention group, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant between the two groups (P>0.05). There was one patient showed a nonfatal ischemic stroke (transient ischemic attack) in the interventional group and 3 patients in the rivaroxaban group. There were no fatal strokes or early deaths in either group. There was no significant difference in the cumulative survival rate between the interventional group and the rivaroxaban group (P>0.05). In the interventional group, there were one case of new atrial fibrillation, two cases of atrial premature beats combined with short-term atrial tachycardia, but spontaneously recovered to sinus rhythm within 24 hours after surgery. No cardiovascular death, peripheral vascular embolism, myocardial infarction and bleeding events were found. The incidences of combined endpoints were 16.7% (4/24) and 44% (11/25) in the interventional and rivaroxaban groups,respectively. There was significant difference in the cumulative survival rate between the two groups (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in NIHSS scores and mRS scores at each time point between the two groups. Conclusion Interventional closure is more effective than rivaroxaban inimproving theprognosis ofpatients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO.

Key words: foramen ovale, patent, stroke, Rivaroxaban, prognosis, idiopathic, interventional therapy