新发孤立脑干梗死患者1年预后的影响因素分析

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-5765.2021.10.011

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的分析不同临床及影像学特征对新发孤立脑干梗死患者1年预后的影响。方法通过中国颅内动脉粥样硬化研究登记数据，回顾性分析2007年10月-2009年6月连续收治的新发孤立脑干梗死患者的临床资料，收集患者的临床及影像学资料，以1年患者mRS＞2分、卒中复发或死亡为不良结局事件，将患者分为无不良结局事件组和不良结局事件组。比较两组临床及影像学特征，分析新发孤立脑干梗死患者1年预后的影响因素。结果最终纳入281例新发孤立脑干梗死患者，中位年龄63（56～72）岁，男性179例（63.7%）；不良结局事件组84例（29.9%），无不良结局事件组197例（70.1%）。两组临床资料比较结果显示，不良结局事件组年龄、入院时NIHSS评分、出院时mRS＞2分比例及大动脉粥样硬化型比例均高于无不良结局事件组，差异有统计学意义。两组影像学特征比较结果显示，不良结局事件组Fazekas量表≥3分、脑干多组穿支动脉受累患者比例高于无不良结局事件组，梗死灶体积大于无不良结局事件组，差异有统计学意义；两组梗死灶部位指标差异有统计学意义，其中不良结局事件组梗死灶累计两个部位（脑桥合并中脑）患者比例高于无不良结局事件组。多因素logistic回归分析结果显示，出院时mRS＞2分（OR 3.80，95%CI 1.75～8.23，P =0.001）、Fazekas量表≥3分（OR 2.66，95%CI 1.37～5.18，P =0.004）及脑干多组穿支动脉受累（OR 1.99，95%CI 1.06～3.74，P =0.032）是新发孤立脑干梗死患者1年预后的独立危险因素。结论脑干多组穿支动脉受累、出院时患者mRS＞2分及Fazekas量表≥3分是新发孤立脑干梗死患者 1年预后的独立危险因素，临床实践中需注意筛查和控制以上危险因素，以降低患者不良预后风险。

文章导读： 本研究基于中国颅内动脉粥样硬化研究登记数据进行回顾性分析，结果显示脑干多组穿支动脉受累、出
院时mRS＞2分及Fazekas量表≥3分是孤立脑干梗死患者1年预后的独立危险因素，临床实践中要注意区分采取不
同的治疗措施。

关键词: 脑干梗死; 大动脉病变; 预后; 穿支动脉

Abstract: Objective To analyze the effects of different clinical and imaging features on 1-year prognosis of patients with new isolated brainstem infarction. Methods Based on the data of Chinese intracranial atherosclerosis registration study, the clinical and imaging data of consecutive patients with new isolated brainstem infarction from October 2007 to June 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. The adverse outcome events were defined as 1-year mRS >2, stroke recurrence or death. The patients were divided into no adverse outcome event group and adverse outcome event group. The clinical and imaging characteristics of the two groups were compared to analyze the influencing factors for 1-year prognosis of the patients with new isolated brainstem infarction.

Results Finally, a total of 281 patients were included, with a median age of 63 (56-72) years and

179 males (63.7%). There were 84 cases (29.9%) in the adverse outcome event group and 197 cases (70.1%) in no adverse outcome event group. The age, NIHSS at admission, mRS >2 at discharge, the proportion of atherosclerosis and Fazekas scale ≥3 and multiple groups of brainstem perforating arteries involvement, infarct volume and the proportion of two infarct locations (pons and midbrain) in the adverse outcome event group were higher than those in no adverse outcome event group, and the above differences were statistically significant. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that mRS >2 at discharge (OR 3.80, 95%CI 1.75-8.23, P =0.001), Fazekas scale ≥3 (OR 2.66, 95%CI 1.37-5.18, P =0.004) and multiple groups of brainstem perforating arteries involvement (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.06-3.74, P =0.032) were independent risk factors for 1-year prognosis of patients with new isolated brainstem infarction. Conclusions Multiple groups of brainstem perforating arteries involvement, neurological impairment (mRS >2) at discharge and severe leukoaraiosis (Fazekas scale ≥3) were independent risk factors for 1-year prognosis in patients with new isolated brainstem infarction.

Key words: Brainstem infarction; Large artery disease; Prognosis; Perforating artery

刘宏顺, 赵凤丽, 戴海琳, 樊帆, 刘丽萍, 米东华, 张长青, 郭力. 新发孤立脑干梗死患者1年预后的影响因素分析[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2021, 16(10): 1039-1043.

LIU Hong-Shun, ZHAO Feng-Li, DAI Hai-Lin, FAN Fan, LIU Li-Ping, MI Dong-Hua, ZHANG Chang-Qing, GUO Li. Analysis of the Influencing Factors for 1-Year Prognosis of Patients with New Isolated Brainstem Infarction[J]. Chinese Journal of Stroke, 2021, 16(10): 1039-1043.

参考文献

[1] EPSTEIN D，MASON A，MANCA A. The
hospital costs of care for stroke in nine European
countries[J/OL]. Health Econ，2008，17（1）：
S21-S31[2020-09-20]. https：//doi.org/10.1002/
hec.1329.
[2] NAH H W，KANG D W，KWON S U，et al.
Diversity of single small subcortical infarctions
according to infarct location and parent artery
disease：analysis of indicators for small vessel
disease and atherosclerosis[J]. Stroke，2010，41（12）：
2822-2827.
[3] ZHANG C Q，WANG Y L，ZHAO X Q，et al. Distal
single subcortical infarction had a better clinical
outcome compared with proximal single subcortical
infarction[J]. Stroke，2014，45（9）：2613-2619.
[4] PU Y H，LIU L P，WANG Y L，et al. Geographic
and sex difference in the distribution of intracranial
atherosclerosis in China[J]. Stroke，2013，44（8）：
2109-2114.
[5] AY H，FURIE K L，SINGHAL A，et al. An
evidence-based causative classification system for
acute ischemic stroke[J]. Ann Neurol，2005，58（5）：
688-697.
[6] ZHANG C Q，LI Z X，WANG Y L，et al. Risk
factors of cerebral microbleeds in strictly deep or
lobar brain regions differed[J]. J Stroke Cerebrovasc
Dis，2015，24（1）：24-30.
[7] FIELD T S，BENAVENTE O R. Penetrating artery
territory pontine infarction[J]. Rev Neurol Dis，2011，
8（1/2）：30-38.
[8] TATU L，VUILLIER F，MOULIN T. Chapter 13
anatomy of the circulation of the brain and spinal
cord[J/OL]. Handb Clin Neurol，2009，92：247-
281[2020-09-20]. https：//doi.org/10.1016/S0072-9752
（08）01913-1.
[9] YANG L，QIN W，LI Y，et al. Differentiation of
pontine infarction by size[J/OL]. Open Med（Wars），
2020，15：160-166[2020-09-20]. https：//doi.org/10.
1515/med-2020-0025.
[10] SCHONEWILLE W J，ALGRA A，SERENA J，et
al. Outcome in patients with basilar artery occlusion
treated conventionally[J]. J Neurol Neurosurg
Psychiatry，2005，76（9）：1238-1241.
[11] YU Y P，TAN L. The infarct shape predicts
progressive motor deficits in patients with acute
lacunae-sized infarctions in the perforating arterial
territory[J]. Intern Med，2015，54（23）：2999-3004.
[12] OHE Y，DEMBO T，HORIUCHI Y，et al. Clinical
review of 28 patients with basilar artery occlusion[J].
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis，2013，22（4）：358-363.
[13] ARNOLD M，NEDELICHEV K，SCHROTH
G，et al. Clinical and radiological predictors of
recanalization and outcome of 40 patients with acute
basilar artery occlusion treated with intra-arterial
thrombolysis[J]. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry，
2004，75（6）：857-862.
[14] TATU L，MOULIN T，VUILLIER F，et al. Arterial
territories of the human brain[J/OL]. Front Neurol
Neurosci，2012，30：99-110[2020-09-20].
https：//doi.org/10.1159/000333602.
[15] KUNZ S，GRIESE H，BUSSE O. Etiology and longterm
prognosis of unilateral paramedian pontine
infarction with progressive symptoms[J]. Eur Neurol，
2003，50（3）：136-140.
[16] EVANS M R，WEEKS R A. Putting pontine
anatomy into clinical practice：the 16 syndrome[J].
Pract Neurol，2016，16（6）：484-487.
[17] XIA C，CHEN H S，WU S W，et al. Etiology of
isolated pontine infarctions：a study based on highresolution
MRI and brain small vessel disease
scores[J]. BMC Neurol，2017，17（1）：216.