• Maxim Mokin, Tareq Kass-Hout, Omar Kass-Hout, Travis M Dumont, Peter Kan, Kenneth V Snyder, L Nelson Hopkins, Adnan H Siddiqui, and Elad I Levy.
• FAHA, University at Buffalo Neurosurgery, State University of New York, 100 High Street, B4, Buffalo, NY 14203, USA.
• Stroke. 2012 Sep 1;43(9):2362-8.

Background And PurposeStrokes secondary to acute internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion are associated with extremely poor prognosis. The best treatment approach to acute stroke in this setting is unknown. We sought to determine clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke attributable to ICA occlusion treated with intravenous (IV) systemic thrombolysis or intra-arterial endovascular therapy.MethodsUsing the PubMed database, we searched for studies that included patients with acute ischemic stroke attributable to ICA occlusion who received treatment with IV thrombolysis or intra-arterial endovascular interventions. Studies providing data on functional outcomes beyond 30 days and mortality and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) rates were included in our analysis. We compared the proportions of patients with favorable functional outcomes, sICH, and mortality rates in the 2 treatment groups by calculating χ(2) and confidence intervals for odds ratios.ResultsWe identified 28 studies with 385 patients in the IV thrombolysis group and 584 in the endovascular group. Rates of favorable outcomes and sICH were significantly higher in the endovascular group than the IV thrombolysis-only group (33.6% vs 24.9%, P=0.004 and 11.1% vs 4.9%, P=0.001, respectively). No significant difference in mortality rate was found between the groups (27.3% in the IV thrombolysis group vs 32.0% in the endovascular group; P=0.12).ConclusionsAccording to our systematic review, endovascular treatment of acute ICA occlusion results in improved clinical outcomes. A higher rate of sICH after endovascular treatment does not result in increased overall mortality rate.

23 keywords...

hide…