Reperfusion therapies in patients with acute ischaemic stroke and atrial fibrillation: data on safety and effectiveness from a multi-centre cohort study

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or endovascular therapy (EVT) are currently considered best practices in acute stroke patients. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of reperfusion therapies in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are conflicting as regards haemorrhagic transformation, mortality, and functional outcome. This study sought to investigate for any differences, in terms of safety and effectiveness, between AF patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) treated and untreated with reperfusion therapies. METHODS: Data from two multicenter cohort studies (RAF and RAF-NOACs) on consecutive patients with AF and AIS were analyzed to compare patients treated and not treated with reperfusion therapies (IVT and/or EVT). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors for outcome events: 90-day good functional outcome and mortality. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis compared treated and untreated patients. RESULTS: Overall, 441 (25.4%) were included in the reperfusion-treated group and 1,295 (74.6%) in the untreated group. The multivariable model suggested that reperfusion therapies were significantly associated with good functional outcome. Rates of mortality and disability were higher in patients not treated, especially in the case of higher NIHSS scores. In the PSM comparison, 173/250 patients (69.2%) who had received reperfusion therapies had good functional outcome at 90 days, compared to 146/250 (58.4%) untreated patients (p = 0.009, OR: 1.60, 95% CI:1.11-2.31). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF and AIS treated with reperfusion therapies had a significantly higher rate of good functional outcome and lower rates of mortality compared to those patients with AF and AIS who had undergone conservative treatment.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.