Functional Outcome of Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients With Lacunar Infarcts in the WAKE-UP Trial.
Administration, Intravenous
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Brain Infarction
/ diagnostic imaging
Double-Blind Method
Female
Fibrinolytic Agents
/ administration & dosage
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Stroke, Lacunar
/ diagnostic imaging
Tissue Plasminogen Activator
/ administration & dosage
Journal
JAMA neurology
ISSN: 2168-6157
Titre abrégé: JAMA Neurol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2019
01 06 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
26
3
2019
medline:
25
2
2020
entrez:
26
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The rationale for intravenous thrombolysis in patients with lacunar infarcts is debated, since it is hypothesized that the microvascular occlusion underlying lacunar infarcts might not be susceptible to pharmacological reperfusion treatment. To study the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis among patients with lacunar infarcts. This exploratory secondary post hoc analysis of the WAKE-UP trial included patients who were screened and enrolled between September 2012 and June 2017 (with final follow-up in September 2017). The WAKE-UP trial was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial to study the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase in patients with an acute stroke of unknown onset time, guided by magnetic resonance imaging. All 503 patients randomized in the WAKE-UP trial were reviewed for lacunar infarcts. Diagnosis of lacunar infarcts was based on magnetic resonance imaging and made by consensus of 2 independent investigators blinded to clinical information. The primary efficacy variable was favorable outcome defined by a score of 0 to 1 on the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days after stroke, adjusted for age and severity of symptoms. Of the 503 patients randomized in the WAKE-UP trial, 108 patients (including 74 men [68.5%]) had imaging-defined lacunar infarcts, whereas 395 patients (including 251 men [63.5%]) had nonlacunar infarcts. Patients with lacunar infarcts were younger than patients with nonlacunar infarcts (mean age [SD], 63 [12] years vs 66 [12] years; P = .003). Of patients with lacunar infarcts, 55 (50.9%) were assigned to treatment with alteplase and 53 (49.1%) to receive placebo. Treatment with alteplase was associated with higher odds of favorable outcome, with no heterogeneity of treatment outcome between lacunar and nonlacunar stroke subtypes. In patients with lacunar strokes, a favorable outcome was observed in 31 of 53 patients (59%) in the alteplase group compared with 24 of 52 patients (46%) in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.67 [95% CI, 0.77-3.64]). There was 1 death and 1 symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage according to Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-Monitoring Study criteria in the alteplase group, while no death and no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in the placebo group. The distribution of the modified Rankin Scale scores 90 days after stroke also showed a nonsignificant shift toward better outcomes in patients with lacunar infarcts treated with alteplase, with an adjusted common odds ratio of 1.94 (95% CI, 0.95-3.93). While the WAKE-UP trial was not powered to demonstrate the efficacy of treatment in subgroups of patients, the results indicate that the association of intravenous alteplase with functional outcome does not differ in patients with imaging-defined lacunar infarcts compared with those experiencing other stroke subtypes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30907934
pii: 2729091
doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.0351
pmc: PMC6563546
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fibrinolytic Agents
0
Tissue Plasminogen Activator
EC 3.4.21.68
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
641-649Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Neurology. 2000 Feb 8;54(3):684-8
pubmed: 10680804
Stroke. 2011 Jan;42(1):102-6
pubmed: 21106955
J Neurol. 2014 Feb;261(2):405-11
pubmed: 24366651
Eur J Neurol. 2017 Jun;24(6):780-787
pubmed: 28449276
Neurology. 1965 Aug;15:774-84
pubmed: 14315302
N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 30;337(18):1309-10; discussion 1313
pubmed: 9345084
Lancet. 1998 Oct 17;352(9136):1245-51
pubmed: 9788453
N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 25;359(13):1317-29
pubmed: 18815396
JAMA. 1995 Oct 4;274(13):1017-25
pubmed: 7563451
Lancet Neurol. 2013 Aug;12(8):822-38
pubmed: 23867200
World J Clin Cases. 2015 May 16;3(5):418-29
pubmed: 25984516
Stroke. 2001 Feb;32(2):438-41
pubmed: 11157179
Lancet Neurol. 2011 Nov;10(11):978-86
pubmed: 21978972
Lancet Neurol. 2013 Jul;12(7):689-705
pubmed: 23726850
Lancet. 2007 Jan 27;369(9558):275-82
pubmed: 17258667
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 16;379(7):611-622
pubmed: 29766770
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010;29(4):395-402
pubmed: 20173323
Stroke. 2014 Sep;45(9):2722-7
pubmed: 25074517
Arch Neurol. 1979 Feb;36(2):65-73
pubmed: 420625
Stroke. 2004 Jul;35(7):1778-9
pubmed: 15166384
Eur J Neurol. 2012 Dec;19(12):1568-74
pubmed: 22742869
Lancet. 2012 Jun 23;379(9834):2352-63
pubmed: 22632908
Eur J Neurol. 2010 Aug;17(8):1054-60
pubmed: 20136649
Int J Stroke. 2013 Oct;8 Suppl A100:45-9
pubmed: 23231478
Expert Rev Neurother. 2014 Mar;14(3):261-76
pubmed: 24490992
Pract Neurol. 2008 Aug;8(4):222-8
pubmed: 18644908
JAMA. 2018 Jul 10;320(2):156-166
pubmed: 29998337
N Engl J Med. 1995 Dec 14;333(24):1581-7
pubmed: 7477192
Stroke. 2005 Apr;36(4):891-901
pubmed: 15761206
J Neuroimaging. 2003 Apr;13(2):152-4
pubmed: 12722498
Neurology. 2003 Jul 8;61(1):71-5
pubmed: 12847159