Why the study?
Efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke caused by cardiac myxoma have not been established, with data limited to case reports.
Does intravenous thrombolysis improve outcomes and demonstrate safety in patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to cardiac myxoma?
Does intravenous thrombolysis improve outcomes and demonstrate safety in patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to cardiac myxoma?
Intravenous thrombolysis appears to be a potentially safe and effective treatment for acute ischemic stroke secondary to cardiac myxoma, yielding favorable 3-month outcomes in the majority of patients.
Background and Purpose: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a major life-threatening consequence of cardiac myxoma (CM) and leads to a poor prognosis. Although intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is the first-line treatment for AIS, its efficacy and safety in CM-AIS have not been established. Currently, there are only limited data from case reports. Our study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics of CM-AIS and evaluate the safety and efficacy of IVT for CM-AIS patients. Methods: Fourteen CM-AIS patients who received IVT between January 2016 and December 2021 were identified from our multicenter stroke registry databases. Clinical, neuroimaging and outcome data were analyzed. We then performed a pooled analysis of the published literature from inception to December 2021. Results: Of the 14 CM-AIS patients, nine were treated with IVT alone, and five were treated with bridging therapy (BT). The median age was 51.5 years, and 57.1% were female. The median onset-to-needle time was 160 min. The median National Institute of Health Stroke Score (NIHSS) decreased from 15.5 at presentation to 13 24 h after IVT. Very early neurological improvement (VENI) was observed in one patient. Hemorrhagic transformation (HT) was observed in five (35.7%) patients, and only one patient was symptomatic (7.1%). Three-month favorable outcomes were achieved in six patients (66.7%) who underwent IVT alone and three patients (60%) who received BT, which resulted in a total proportion of favorable outcomes of 64.3%. None of the patients died at 3 months follow-up. Forty-seven cases (15 BT patients) were included for the pooled analysis. The median NIHSS score was 16.5, and VENI was observed in 10 (21.3%) patients. HT was detected in 11 patients (23.4%), and four (8.5%) patients were symptomatic. Favorable outcomes at 3 months were achieved in 61.7% of patients, 56.3% of patients who underwent IVT alone, and 73.3% of patients who received BT. The 3-month mortality rate was 4.3%. Conclusions: IVT is a potentially safe and efficient treatment for CM-AIS patients. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to provide more evidence on the safety and efficacy of IVT and BT in CM-AIS patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rao et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: