急性缺血性卒中(acute ischemic stroke,AIS)是危害人類生命和健康的最常見疾病之一,早期準(zhǔn)確判斷急性缺血性卒中患者的預(yù)后對(duì)醫(yī)生制訂治療決策和患者及家屬合理選擇治療與康復(fù)至關(guān)重要。近幾年國(guó)內(nèi)外學(xué)者越來越重視關(guān)于AIS預(yù)后評(píng)分的研究[1-5],開發(fā)出許多新的AIS預(yù)后評(píng)分,有些預(yù)后評(píng)分已在不同人群中得到外部驗(yàn)證[1]。
近年來國(guó)外學(xué)者特別重視AIS預(yù)后評(píng)分的研究,主要是因?yàn)閷?duì)AIS預(yù)后的準(zhǔn)確評(píng)估可給臨床醫(yī)療、科研、患者及家屬帶來不同層面和不同程度的幫助,首先科學(xué)而準(zhǔn)確的AIS預(yù)測(cè)評(píng)分可有效幫助臨床醫(yī)生判斷患者疾病嚴(yán)重程度并指導(dǎo)臨床診療決策;其次有益于緩解醫(yī)患矛盾,使患者及其家屬對(duì)疾病恢復(fù)的程度有更切合實(shí)際的預(yù)期、對(duì)未來有長(zhǎng)期的生活安排;最后,可有效幫助藥物及器械臨床試驗(yàn)研究快速篩選合適的病例。
目前尚沒有判定AIS患者預(yù)后的統(tǒng)一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和評(píng)估工具。目前在各種臨床研究中,改良Rankin量表(modified Rankin Scale,mRS)[6]、Barthel指數(shù)(Barthel Index,BI)[7]是被采用最多的用于評(píng)定AIS患者預(yù)后良好/不良結(jié)局的工具。判定的時(shí)間多采用發(fā)病后90 d、6個(gè)月、1年或2年。通常以90 d時(shí)患者mRS 0~1分、BI≥95分或mRS 0~2分、BI≥90分[8]作為預(yù)后良好的評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn);90 d時(shí)患者mRS 2~6分、BI<95分或mRS 3~6分、BI<90分[8]或接受靜脈溶栓后mRS 5~6分[9]為預(yù)后不良的評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。mRS是最為廣泛接受和使用的預(yù)后評(píng)估工具。
AIS預(yù)后評(píng)分的種類較多,特別是近5年國(guó)外開發(fā)出一些新的預(yù)后評(píng)分工具[2-4,10-11]。主要分為整體AIS預(yù)后預(yù)測(cè)評(píng)分[主要包括洛桑卒中評(píng)分(Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne,ASTRAL)[2]、博洛尼亞卒中結(jié)局評(píng)分(the Bologna Outcome Algorithm for Stroke,BOAS)[3]、跟著指南走卒中評(píng)分(Get with the Guidelines-Stroke,GWTG-Stroke)[4]、加拿大急性缺血性卒中死亡風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)分(a Risk Score to Predict Death Early after Hospitalization for an Acute Ischemic Stroke,iScore)[10]和PLAN評(píng)分(Preadmission Comorbidities,Level of Consciousness,Age,Neurologic Deficit,PLAN)[11]等]、接受血管內(nèi)治療的AIS預(yù)后評(píng)分[包括血管事件總體健康風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)分(Totaled Health Risks in Vascular Events Score,THRIVE)[12]、休斯敦動(dòng)脈內(nèi)血管再通治療評(píng)分(Houston Intra-arterial Recanalization Therapy,HIAT)[13]和SAD評(píng)分(the Stanford Age and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging,SAD)[14]]、接受靜脈溶栓的AIS預(yù)后評(píng)分,詳見本刊專題綜述——急性缺血性卒中預(yù)后評(píng)分的研究進(jìn)展。溶栓后出血轉(zhuǎn)化(hemorrhagic transformation,HT)為靜脈溶栓最常見的并發(fā)癥,特別是癥狀性顱內(nèi)出血(symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage,SICH)屬嚴(yán)重的并發(fā)癥,因此開發(fā)出了用于溶栓后出血預(yù)測(cè)的評(píng)分,主要有溶栓后出血評(píng)分(Hemorrhage after Thrombolysis,HAT)[9]、多中心卒中調(diào)查預(yù)測(cè)評(píng)分(Multicenter Stroke Survey,MSS)[15]、SITS評(píng)分(Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke)[16]、GRASPS評(píng)分(Glucose at Presentation,Race,Age,Sex,Systolic Blood Pressure at Presentation,Severity of Stroke at Presentation)[17]、SPAN-100評(píng)分(Stroke Prognostication using Age and NIH Stroke Scale)[18]、SEDAN評(píng)分(Baseline Blood Sugar,Early Infarct Signs,Hyperdense Cerebral Artery Sign on Admission CT,Age)和美國(guó)國(guó)立衛(wèi)生研究院卒中量表(National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale,NIHSS)[19]等。
不同的預(yù)后評(píng)分模型采用的預(yù)測(cè)因子不相同,被采用最多的是年齡與性別、卒中嚴(yán)重程度、發(fā)病到治療的時(shí)間窗和高血糖。
4.1 年齡與性別 年齡是獨(dú)立于AIS嚴(yán)重程度、病因、性別、疾病特點(diǎn)、溶栓與否和并發(fā)癥的預(yù)測(cè)因子,對(duì)18歲以上的患者來說,年齡越小預(yù)后越好,高齡與不良預(yù)后密切相關(guān)[20],無論是在AIS的總體預(yù)后評(píng)分還是在接受介入治療或溶栓治療的AIS預(yù)后評(píng)分,年齡都被認(rèn)為是權(quán)重分?jǐn)?shù)最大的變量[只有卒中溶栓預(yù)測(cè)評(píng)分(Stroke Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument,Stroke-TPI)用于預(yù)后良好評(píng)估的部分未納入年齡][1]。近來研究表明,性別也是卒中預(yù)后的一個(gè)重要影響因子,相比女性青年卒中男性易患卒中且患病更重,預(yù)后更差,這種趨勢(shì)到了更年期后便出現(xiàn)了反轉(zhuǎn),卒中后類固醇激素調(diào)節(jié)、卒中后細(xì)胞死亡的路徑及微小核糖核酸(ribonucleic acid,RNA)調(diào)節(jié)在男女兩性方面的不同,由此影響卒中的預(yù)后[21]。特別值得一提的是年齡還與性別共同影響預(yù)后,有研究認(rèn)為不同的卒中類型存在性別差異,女性的預(yù)期壽命比男性更長(zhǎng)、發(fā)病的年齡更高,因此絕經(jīng)后的女性患卒中和卒中預(yù)后不良的比例更高[22],高齡女性相比男性更容易患重癥AIS[23]。高齡也是AIS溶栓后發(fā)生出血轉(zhuǎn)化和預(yù)后不良的危險(xiǎn)因素,大于80歲的AIS患者靜脈溶栓后死亡率明顯升高[24]。
4.2 卒中的嚴(yán)重程度 卒中嚴(yán)重程度對(duì)AIS患者不良預(yù)后具有最強(qiáng)的預(yù)測(cè)能力[25],無論是對(duì)AIS的總體預(yù)后評(píng)分還是靜脈溶栓后或介入治療后的預(yù)后評(píng)分以及溶栓后SICH的預(yù)測(cè)均包含卒中嚴(yán)重程度因子。病情越嚴(yán)重其不良預(yù)后的發(fā)生率越高,病情嚴(yán)重的患者溶栓治療的效果差,腦梗死后出血轉(zhuǎn)化的發(fā)生率高,在發(fā)病后的3~4.5 h NIHSS評(píng)分超過25分不建議溶栓治療[5]。卒中嚴(yán)重程度可以使用基線NIHSS評(píng)分來評(píng)估[26],但有研究強(qiáng)調(diào)采用卒中后24 h的NIHSS評(píng)分作為卒中預(yù)后的預(yù)測(cè)因子有時(shí)更為準(zhǔn)確,因?yàn)樽渲邪l(fā)病后病情在不斷地變化,一般到24 h才趨于穩(wěn)定[1]。
4.3 發(fā)病到治療的時(shí)間窗 發(fā)病到治療的時(shí)間窗(onset-to-treatment time)這一指標(biāo)主要用于AIS溶栓治療患者的預(yù)后評(píng)分,時(shí)間的延遲代表了腦組織損傷的加重,隨著時(shí)間的延長(zhǎng)靜脈溶栓患者發(fā)生SICH的概率不斷增加[17,27]。發(fā)病后3~4.5 h靜脈rt-PA溶栓需要更加嚴(yán)格的適應(yīng)證才能使患者獲益[28],否則發(fā)生出血轉(zhuǎn)化的概率增大,繼續(xù)擴(kuò)大時(shí)間窗到6 h則能導(dǎo)致患者SICH及死亡率的顯著增加[29],因此,發(fā)病到治療的時(shí)間窗的延長(zhǎng)主要作為AIS患者靜脈溶栓預(yù)后不良的預(yù)測(cè)指標(biāo)。
4.4 高血糖 腦梗死后的高血糖是AIS后的垂體-下丘腦-腎上腺軸應(yīng)激反應(yīng)的結(jié)果還是腦缺血后的糖調(diào)節(jié)障礙所致目前還有爭(zhēng)論,但比較明確的是高血糖可引起自由基的增加、血腦屏障通透性增強(qiáng)、線粒體功能受損、鈣離子向細(xì)胞內(nèi)流及細(xì)胞毒性水腫等,由此加重腦梗死[1]。比較有趣的是目前在AIS的整體預(yù)測(cè)中僅ASTRAL和iScore預(yù)后評(píng)分包含高血糖,高血糖更多地用于AIS溶栓后發(fā)生SICH和不良預(yù)后的預(yù)測(cè),因?yàn)槎囗?xiàng)研究均表明,伴有基線高血糖的AIS患者靜脈溶栓后發(fā)生預(yù)后不良的概率、SICH發(fā)生率及死亡率都明顯升高[30-31]。
4.5 其他 影響卒中預(yù)后的因素眾多,其影響的權(quán)重也不盡一致,除了上述影響因子外,其他還包括發(fā)病時(shí)的血壓、ASPECTS(Alberta Stroke Program Early CT)、卒中前狀態(tài)、吞咽困難、卒中亞型、體溫、意識(shí)狀態(tài)、視野缺損、共病狀態(tài)、CT上的大腦中動(dòng)脈征、血小板計(jì)數(shù)、體重、發(fā)病前使用抗血小板藥物、心肌梗死、心房顫動(dòng)及種族等[1,32]。
影響AIS預(yù)后的影響因素非常多,任何一個(gè)預(yù)測(cè)評(píng)分模型都不可能包括所有預(yù)后影響因子,值得一提的是很多預(yù)測(cè)模型都沒有包括患者卒中前的功能狀態(tài)和生活社會(huì)環(huán)境,但是它們對(duì)預(yù)后是有影響的。理想的預(yù)后預(yù)測(cè)評(píng)分模型應(yīng)該是簡(jiǎn)單、方便、快捷、準(zhǔn)確,事實(shí)上每種卒中預(yù)后評(píng)分都有其長(zhǎng)處和局限性,比如ASTRAL評(píng)分簡(jiǎn)單方便,不需要專門的數(shù)學(xué)公式或網(wǎng)上在線計(jì)算器,實(shí)用性較高,但其沒有納入影像學(xué)資料,影響其預(yù)測(cè)的準(zhǔn)確性,也不適用于溶栓后出血轉(zhuǎn)化的預(yù)測(cè)。iScore評(píng)分更側(cè)重全身因素,如基礎(chǔ)性疾病、卒中前自理能力、卒中危險(xiǎn)因素、發(fā)病機(jī)制等,故對(duì)年齡和卒中程度相似而基礎(chǔ)病情不同的患者,該評(píng)分能更有效地判斷預(yù)后,但該評(píng)分涉及的變量多、計(jì)算相對(duì)復(fù)雜,難以在臨床上快速方便地應(yīng)用。在AIS超早期選擇適合的預(yù)后評(píng)分模型評(píng)估溶栓的預(yù)后和可能的SICH對(duì)臨床神經(jīng)科醫(yī)師迅速?zèng)Q策是否溶栓治療顯得更為重要,THRIVE評(píng)分在中國(guó)AIS溶栓患者的不良預(yù)后、SICH及死亡的預(yù)測(cè)得到驗(yàn)證[33]。實(shí)驗(yàn)室資料和影像資料在預(yù)后評(píng)分方面不容低估[1],有條件的單位應(yīng)盡可能將其納入以提高預(yù)后評(píng)分的準(zhǔn)確性。作為一個(gè)卒中中心,至少應(yīng)包括分析非增強(qiáng)腦CT資料[1]。隨著互聯(lián)網(wǎng)+的推廣普及,基層醫(yī)院使用遠(yuǎn)程會(huì)診或電話會(huì)診系統(tǒng)可大有作為。值得注意的一點(diǎn)是當(dāng)使用腦卒中評(píng)分預(yù)測(cè)患者預(yù)后不良或近期死亡時(shí),也不能因此撤除對(duì)患者的治療和護(hù)理,隨著新的有效的治療方法的應(yīng)用,原有的卒中預(yù)測(cè)方法可能變得不準(zhǔn)確。
1 Ntaios G,Papavasileiou V,Michel P,et al. Predicting functional outcome and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients with acute ischemic stroke:a glimpse into the crystal ball?[J]. Stroke,2015,46:899-908.
2 Ntaios G,F(xiàn)aouzi M,F(xiàn)errari J,et al. An integer-based score to predict functional outcome in acute ischemic stroke:the ASTRAL score[J]. Neurology,2012,78:1916-1922.
3 Muscari A,Puddu GM,Santoro N,et al. A simple scoring system for outcome prediction of ischemic stroke[J]. Acta Neurol Scand,2011,124:334-342.
4 Smith EE,Shobha N,Dai D,et al. Risk score for in-hospital ischemic stroke mortality derived and validated within the Get With the Guidelines-Stroke program[J]. Circulation,2010,122:1496-1504.
5 張心邈,王春娟,廖曉凌,等. 缺血性卒中靜脈溶栓預(yù)后預(yù)測(cè)的研究進(jìn)展[J]. 中國(guó)卒中雜志,2014;12:1041-1047.
6 van Swieten JC,Koudstaal PJ,Visser MC,et al.Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients[J]. Stroke,1988,19:604-607.
7 Quinn TJ,Langhorne P,Stott DJ. Barthel Index for stroke trials development,properties,and application[J]. Stroke,2011,42:1146-1151.
8 Uyttenboogaart M,Stewart RE,Keyser JD,et al.Optimizing cutoff scores for the Barthel Index and the modified Rankin Scale for defining outcome in acute stroke trials[J]. Stroke,2005,36:1984-1987.
9 Lou M,Safdar A,Mehdiratta M,et al. The HAT score:a simple grading scale for predicting hemorrhage after thrombolysis[J]. Neurology,2008,71:1417-1423.
10 Saposnik G,Raptis S,Kapral MK,et al. Investigators of the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network and the Stroke Outcome Research Canada Working Group.The iScore predicts poor functional outcomes early after hospitalization for an acute ischemic stroke[J].Stroke,2011,42:3421-3428.
11 O’Donnell MJ,F(xiàn)ang J,D’Uva C,et al. Investigators of the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. The PLAN score:a bedside prediction rule for death and severe disability following acute ischemic stroke[J].Arch Intern Med,2012,172:1548-1556.
12 Flint AC,Cullen SP,F(xiàn)aigeles BS,et a1. Predicting long-term outcome after endovascular stroke treatment:the totaled health risks in vascular events score[J].AJNR Am J Neuroradiol,2010,31:1192-1196.
13 Hallevi H,Barreto AD,Liebeskind DS,et al.Identifying patients at high risk for poor outcome after intraarterial therapy for acute ischemic stroke[J].Stroke,2009,40:1780-1785.
14 Liggins JTP,Yoo AJ,Mishra NK,et al. A score based on age and DWI volume predicts poor outcome following endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke[J]. Int J Stroke,2015,10:705-709.
15 Cucchiara B,Tanne D,Levine SR,et al. A risk score to predict intracranial hemorrhage after recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke[J]. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis,2008,17:331-333.
16 Mazya M,Egido JA,F(xiàn)ord GA,et al. Predicting the risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage in ischemic stroke treated with intravenous alteplase:Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke (SITS)Symptomatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage Risk Score[J].Stroke,2012,43:1524-1531.
17 Menon BK,Saver JL,Prabhakaran S,et al,Risk score for intracranial hemorrhage in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous tissuetype plasminogen activator[J]. Stroke,2012,43:2293-2299.
18 Saposnik G,Guzik AK,Reeves M,et al. Stroke prognostication using age and NIH Stroke Scale:SPAN-100[J]. Neurology,2013,80:21-28.
19 Strbian D,Engelter S,Michel P,et al. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage after stroke thrombolysis:The SEDAN Score[J]. Ann Neurol,2012,71:634-641.
20 Knoflach M,Matosevic B,Rücker M,et al.Functional recovery after ischemic stroke--a matter of age:data from the Austrian Stroke Unit Registry[J].Neurology,2012,78:279-285.
21 Kim TH,Vemuganti R. Effect of sex and age interactions on functional outcome after stroke[J].CNS Neurosci Ther,2015,21:327-336.
22 Haast RA,Gustafson DR,Kiliaan AJ. Sex differences in stroke[J]. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab,2012,32:2100-2107.
23 Caso V,Lutsep HL. A focus on stroke in women[J].Women's Health (Lond Engl),2011,7:257-259.
24 Ford GA,Ahmed N,Azevedo E,et al. Intravenous alteplase for stroke in those older than 80 years old[J].Stroke,2010,41:2568-2574.
25 Wahlgren N,Ahmed N,Eriksson N,et al.Multivariable analysis of outcome predictors and adjustment of main outcome results to baseline data profile in randomized controlled trials:Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-MOnitoring STudy (SITS-MOST)[J]. Stroke,2008,39:3316-3322.
26 Muir KW,Weir CJ,Murray GD,et al. Comparison of neurological scales and scoring systems for acute stroke prognosis[J]. Stroke,1996,27:1817-1820.
27 Strbian D,Meretoja A,Ahlhelm FJ,et al. Predicting outcome of Ⅳ thrombolysis-treated ischemic stroke patients:the DRAGON score[J]. Neurology,2012,78:427-432.
28 Ahmed N,Wahlgren N,Grond M,et al. Implementation and outcome of thrombolysis with alteplase 3-4.5 h after an acute stroke:an updated analysis from SITSISTR[J].Lancet Neurol,2010,9:866-874.
29 IST-3 collaborative group,Sandercock P,Wardlaw JM,et al. The benefits and harms of intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator within 6 h of acute ischemic stroke (the third international stroke trial[IST-3]):a randomised controlled trial[J]. Lancet,2012,379:2352-2363.
30 Whiteley WN,Slot KB,F(xiàn)ernandes P,et al. Risk factors for intracranial hemorrhage in acute ischemic stroke patients treated with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator:a systematic review and metaanalysis of 55 studies[J]. Stroke,2012,43:2904-2909.
31 Poppe AY,Majumdar SR,Jeerakathil T,et al.Admission hyperglycemia predicts a worse outcome in stroke patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis[J].Diabetes Care,2009,32:617-622.
32 聶志余,陳玉輝,李艷成,等. 高收縮壓水平腦分水嶺梗死急性期升壓治療對(duì)預(yù)后影響的前瞻性研究[J]. 中國(guó)卒中雜志,2015:10:835-840.
33 Chen W,Pan Y,Zhao X,et al. Totaled health risks in vascular events score predicts clinical outcome and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in Chinese patients after thrombolysis[J]. Stroke,2015,46:864-866.