Intravenous Thrombolysis in Posterior versus Anterior Circulation Stroke: Clinical Outcome Differs Only in Patients with Large Vessel Occlusion

Abstract

The safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) are well established in anterior circulation stroke (ACS) but are much less clear for posterior circulation stroke (PCS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of parenchymal hematoma (PH) and 3-month clinical outcomes after IVT in PCS and ACS. In an observational, cohort multicenter study, we analyzed data from ischemic stroke patients treated with IVT prospectively collected in the SITS (Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke) registry in the Czech Republic between 2004 and 2018. Out of 10,211 patients, 1166 (11.4%) had PCS, and 9045 (88.6%) ACS. PH was less frequent in PCS versus ACS patients: 3.6 vs. 5.9%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.594 in the whole set, 4.4 vs. 7.8%, OR = 0.543 in those with large vessel occlusion (LVO), and 2.2 vs. 4.7%, OR = 0.463 in those without LVO. At 3 months, PCS patients compared with ACS patients achieved more frequently excellent clinical outcomes (modified Rankin scale [mRS] 0–1: 55.5 vs. 47.6%, OR = 1.371 in the whole set and 49.2 vs. 37.6%, OR = 1.307 in those with LVO), good clinical outcomes (mRS 0–2: 69.9 vs. 62.8%, OR = 1.377 in the whole set and 64.5 vs. 50.5%, OR = 1.279 in those with LVO), and had lower mortality (12.4 vs. 16.6%, OR = 0.716 in the whole set and 18.4 vs. 25.5%, OR = 0.723 in those with LVO) (p < 0.05 in all cases). In PCS versus ACS patients, an extensive analysis showed a lower risk of PH both in patients with and without LVO, more frequent excellent and good clinical outcomes, and lower mortality 3 months after IVT in patients with LVO.

Keywords

• stroke
• posterior circulation
• anterior circulation
• intravenous thrombolysis
• intracerebral hemorrhage
• clinical outcome