|Table of Contents|

Prediction for hemorrhagic transformation risk after intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke patients in different therapeutic windows: comparison of 5 scoring systems

(PDF)

《第三军医大学学报》[ISSN:1000-5404/CN:51-1095/R]

Issue:
2017年第17期
Page:
1744-1749
Research Field:
临床医学
Publishing date:

Info

Title:

Prediction for hemorrhagic transformation risk after intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke patients in different therapeutic windows: comparison of 5 scoring systems

Author(s):

WU Ya LIU Chengchun LI Wei LIANG Chunrong HUANG Shuhan WANG Huan LI Xiaoshu ZHANG Meng

Department of Neurology, Daping Hospital, Institute of Surgery Research, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400010, China

Keywords:

acute ischemic stroke intravenous thrombolysis scoring systems hemorrhagic transformation

PACS:
R181.2; R619.2; R743.3
DOI:
-
Abstract:

Objective     To compare the predictive value of 5 scoring systems for hemorrhagic transformation risk after intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in different therapeutic windows. Methods    A single-center and retrospective study was performed for 243 AIS patients who underwent intravenous thrombolysis using recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) in different therapeutic windows in our department during January 2014 and December 2016. Five scoring systems, including HAT model (hemorrhage after thrombolysis), MSS model (multicenter stoker survey), GRASPS model (glucose at presentation, race, age, sex, systolic blood pressure at presentation, severity of stroke at presentation), SEDAN model (baseline blood sugar, early infarct signs, hyperdense cerebral artery sign on admission CT, age, NIHSS on admission), and SITS model (safe implementation of thrombolysis in stroke-monitoring study) were used to evaluate the risks for hemorrhagic transformation. The relationships between the 5 scoring systems and incidence rate of hemorrhagic transformation were analyzed among the patients in different therapeutic windows. The predictive values of the 5 scoring systems were compared using the areas (AUC) under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results     When the AIS patients were treated by intravenous thrombolysis within 3 h, the AUC of GRASPS and HAT models were 0.698 and 0.619, respectively, higher than those of the other 3 systems. When the therapeutic window was between 3 to 4.5 h, HAT model and SEDAN model had highest AUC (0.719, 0.744) than the other 3 systems (P<0.05). When the windows were >4.5~6 h, the HAT model had the highest AUC (0.676). Conclusion     The 5 scoring systems show better predictive value for hemorrhagic transformation after intravenous thrombolysis. For the therapeutic window within 4.5 h, HAT model presents best predictive value than the other 4 scoring systems.

References:

[1]KERNAN W N, OVBIAGELE B, BLACK H R, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the american heart association/american stroke association[J]. Stroke,2014,45(7): 2160-2236.DOI: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000024.
[2]中华医学会神经病学分会, 中华医学会神经病学分会脑血管病学组.中国急性缺血性脑卒中诊治指南2014[J].中华神经科杂志,2015,48(4): 246-257. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.10067876.2015.04.002.
Neurology Branch of Chinese Medical Association, Neurology Branch of Chinese Medical Association Cerebrovascular Diseases Study Group. Guide to diagnosis and treatment of acute ischemic stroke in China 2014[J].Chin J Neurol, 2015,48(4): 246-257. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.10067876.2015.04.002.
[3]LOU M, SAFDAR A, MEHDIRATTA M, et al. The HAT score: a simple grading scale for predicting hemorrhage after thrombolysis[J]. Neurology,2008,71(18): 1417-1423. DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000330297.58334.dd.
[4]ALKHALED M, LANGNER B, BRüNING T. Predicting risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and mortality after treatment with recombinant tissueplasminogen activator using SEDAN score[J]. Acta Neurol Scand,2016,133(4): 239-244. DOI: 10.1111/ane.12447.
[5]CUCCHIARA B, TANNE D, LEVINE S R, et al. A risk score to predict intracranial hemorrhage after recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke[J]. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis, 2008,17(6): 331-333. DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2008.03.012.
[6]MARSH E B, LLINAS R H, SCHNEIDER A L, et al. Predicting hemorrhagic transformation of acute ischemic stroke: prospective validation of the HeRS score[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2016,95(2):e2430. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002430.
[7]MAZYA M, EGIDO J A, FORD G A, 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(6):1524-1531. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.644815.
[8]STRBIAN D, ENGELTER S, MICHEL P, et al. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after stroke thrombolysis: the SEDAN score[J]. Ann Neurol, 2012,71(5):634-641. DOI: 10.1002/ana.23546.
[9]陈莉, 秦新月. 缺血性卒中出血性转化相关因素分析[J]. 第三军医大学学报, 2012,34(21):2207-2209. DOI: 1000-5404(2012) 21-2207-03.
CHEN L,Qin X Y.Analysis related factors of hemorrhagic transformation after ischemic stroke[J].J Third Mil Med Univ,2012,34(21):2207-2209. DOI: 1000-5404(2012) 21-2207-03.
[10]张心邈, 王春娟, 廖晓凌, 等. 缺血性卒中静脉溶栓预后预测的研究进展[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2014,(12):1041-1047. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5765.2014.12.009.
ZHANG X M, WANG C J, LIAO X L, et al. Review of prognosis in acute stroke patients treated with thrombolysis[J]. Chin J Stroke, 2014,9(12):1041-1047. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.16735765.2014.12.009.
[11]黄镪, 武剑. 静脉溶栓后出血转化的风险预测的研究进展[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2013,8(3):190-196.
HUANG Q, WU J. Advance in predicting hemorrhage transformation after intravenous thrombosis[J]. Chin J Stroke,2013,8(3):190-196.
[12]谷远峰, 陈会生. 5种评分系统对急性缺血性脑卒中静脉溶栓后出血转化风险预测差异的比较研究[J]. 解放军医药杂志,2016,28 (3): 26-32. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-140X.2016. 03.007.
GU Y F, CHEN H S. Comparative analysis of five scoring systems in prediction of hemorrhagic transformation risk safter intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute cerebralIschemic stroke[J]. Med & Pharm J Chin PLA, 2016 ,28(3): 26-32. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095140X.2016. 03.007.
[13]Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. The national institute of neurological disorders and stroke rtPA stroke study group[J]. N Engl J Med, 1995,333(24):1581-1587. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199512143332401.
[14]HACKE W, DONNAN G, FIESCHI C, et al. Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rtPA stroke trials[J]. Lancet, 2004,363(9411):768-774. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15692-4.
[15]MENON B K, SAVER J L, PRABHAKARAN S, et al. Risk score for intracranial hemorrhage in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator[J]. Stroke, 2012,43(9):2293-2299. DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.1 12.660415.
[16]VAN HOOFF R J, NIEBOER K, DE SMEDT A, et al. Validation assessment of risk tools to predict outcome after thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke[J]. Clin Neurol Neurosurg, 2014,125:189-193. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2014.08.011.
[17]ASUZU D, NYSTROM K, AMIN H, et al. Comparison of 8 scores for predicting symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage after Ⅳ thrombolysis[J]. Neurocrit Care, 2015,22(2):229-233. DOI: 10.1007/s12028-014-0060-2.
[18]WATSONFARGIE T, DAI D, MACLEOD M J, et al. Comparison of predictive scores of symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage after stroke thrombolysis in a single centre[J]. J R Coll Physicians Edinb, 2015,45(2):127-132. DOI: 10.4997/JRCPE.2015.208.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2017-09-04