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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wu, Chuanjie, Wu, Di, Chen, Jian, Li, Chuanhui, Ji, Xunming
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