Cargando…
Why not Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients with Recurrent Stroke within 3 Months?
Acute ischemic stroke continues to be a very severe disorder that has significant impact on human health. Its treatment options are limited and alteplase remains the only American Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Furthermore, intravenous thrombolysi...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
JKL International LLC
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5963351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29896419 http://dx.doi.org/10.14336/AD.2017.0406 |
_version_ | 1783325035280203776 |
---|---|
author | Wu, Chuanjie Wu, Di Chen, Jian Li, Chuanhui Ji, Xunming |
author_facet | Wu, Chuanjie Wu, Di Chen, Jian Li, Chuanhui Ji, Xunming |
author_sort | Wu, Chuanjie |
collection | PubMed |
description | Acute ischemic stroke continues to be a very severe disorder that has significant impact on human health. Its treatment options are limited and alteplase remains the only American Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Furthermore, intravenous thrombolysis remains substantially underutilized, because it has rigorous indications and contraindications. Most patients simply do not meet these criteria and cannot receive thrombolytic treatment. Guidelines in many countries currently include a history of stroke within months as one of the exclusion criteria for intravenous thrombolysis. Although this is based on previous data, it lacks strong evidentiary support. Several recent studies suggested that intravenous thrombolysis may be beneficial for this patient population. We reviewed relevant publications of intravenous thrombolysis or repeated intravenous thrombolysis in patients with a history of stroke in the past 3 months. We found that intravenous thrombolysis in these patients is not as hazardous as previously believed. Among patients with relatively small infarctions and a good prognosis, intravenous thrombolysis may be a good treatment option. We hope that more research will be carried out on this topic to reexamine the criteria for intravenous thrombolysis to allow more patients to benefit from treatment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5963351 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | JKL International LLC |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59633512018-06-12 Why not Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients with Recurrent Stroke within 3 Months? Wu, Chuanjie Wu, Di Chen, Jian Li, Chuanhui Ji, Xunming Aging Dis Review Acute ischemic stroke continues to be a very severe disorder that has significant impact on human health. Its treatment options are limited and alteplase remains the only American Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Furthermore, intravenous thrombolysis remains substantially underutilized, because it has rigorous indications and contraindications. Most patients simply do not meet these criteria and cannot receive thrombolytic treatment. Guidelines in many countries currently include a history of stroke within months as one of the exclusion criteria for intravenous thrombolysis. Although this is based on previous data, it lacks strong evidentiary support. Several recent studies suggested that intravenous thrombolysis may be beneficial for this patient population. We reviewed relevant publications of intravenous thrombolysis or repeated intravenous thrombolysis in patients with a history of stroke in the past 3 months. We found that intravenous thrombolysis in these patients is not as hazardous as previously believed. Among patients with relatively small infarctions and a good prognosis, intravenous thrombolysis may be a good treatment option. We hope that more research will be carried out on this topic to reexamine the criteria for intravenous thrombolysis to allow more patients to benefit from treatment. JKL International LLC 2018-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5963351/ /pubmed/29896419 http://dx.doi.org/10.14336/AD.2017.0406 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Wu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed. |
spellingShingle | Review Wu, Chuanjie Wu, Di Chen, Jian Li, Chuanhui Ji, Xunming Why not Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients with Recurrent Stroke within 3 Months? |
title | Why not Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients with Recurrent Stroke within 3 Months? |
title_full | Why not Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients with Recurrent Stroke within 3 Months? |
title_fullStr | Why not Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients with Recurrent Stroke within 3 Months? |
title_full_unstemmed | Why not Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients with Recurrent Stroke within 3 Months? |
title_short | Why not Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients with Recurrent Stroke within 3 Months? |
title_sort | why not intravenous thrombolysis in patients with recurrent stroke within 3 months? |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5963351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29896419 http://dx.doi.org/10.14336/AD.2017.0406 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wuchuanjie whynotintravenousthrombolysisinpatientswithrecurrentstrokewithin3months AT wudi whynotintravenousthrombolysisinpatientswithrecurrentstrokewithin3months AT chenjian whynotintravenousthrombolysisinpatientswithrecurrentstrokewithin3months AT lichuanhui whynotintravenousthrombolysisinpatientswithrecurrentstrokewithin3months AT jixunming whynotintravenousthrombolysisinpatientswithrecurrentstrokewithin3months |