瑞替普酶与阿替普酶治疗急性缺血性卒中合并心律失常患者的有效性及安全性比较

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-5765.2026.01.005

中国卒中杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (1): 48-54.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5765.2026.01.005

瑞替普酶与阿替普酶治疗急性缺血性卒中合并心律失常患者的有效性及安全性比较

赵敏¹，冯宝玉¹，何丹丹^1，2，王维聪¹，李姝雅^1，3，4

1北京 100070 首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院临床试验中心
2北京 100070 首都医科大学临床流行病学与临床试验学系
3北京 100070 首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院神经系统疾病国家临床医学研究中心
4北京 100070 首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院神经病学中心

收稿日期:2025-10-30 修回日期:2026-01-06 接受日期:2026-01-11 出版日期:2026-01-20 发布日期:2026-01-20
通讯作者: 李姝雅 shuyali85@163.com

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Reteplase and Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Complicated with Arrhythmia

ZHAO Min¹, FENG Baoyu¹, HE Dandan^1,2, WANG Weicong¹, LI Shuya^1,3,4

1Department of Clinical Trial Center, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100070, China 2Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Clinical Trial, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100070, China 3China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100070, China 4Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100070, China

Received:2025-10-30 Revised:2026-01-06 Accepted:2026-01-11 Online:2026-01-20 Published:2026-01-20
Contact: LI Shuya, E-mail: shuyali85@163.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的分析瑞替普酶与阿替普酶治疗急性缺血性卒中（acute ischemic stroke, AIS）合并心律失常患者的有效性及安全性。
方法瑞替普酶与阿替普酶治疗发病4.5 h内AIS（reteplase versus alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke within 4.5 hours，RAISE）研究是1项多中心、随机、对照、开放标签、终点盲法的Ⅲ期临床试验，旨在比较瑞替普酶与阿替普酶对发病4.5 h内AIS患者的治疗效果。本研究是针对RAISE研究中AIS合并心律失常患者的事后分析，根据溶栓药物使用情况将患者分为瑞替普酶组和阿替普酶组，以溶栓后90 d mRS评分0～1分为主要有效性指标、溶栓后36 h内症状性颅内出血为主要安全性指标，比较两种溶栓药物对AIS合并心律失常患者的临床有效性和安全性差异。
结果本研究共纳入129例AIS合并心律失常患者，其中瑞替普酶组59例，阿替普酶组70例。对于主要有效性指标，瑞替普酶组溶栓后90 d mRS评分0～1分的比例有高于阿替普酶组的趋势，但差异无统计学意义（68.4% vs. 66.2%，RR 1.07，95%CI 0.85～1.35，P=0.560）。对于次要有效性指标，瑞替普酶组溶栓后7 d神经功能显著改善（NIHSS评分降低≥4分或NIHSS评分≤1分）的比例较阿替普酶组更高（78.9% vs. 61.2%，RR 1.25，95%CI 1.03～1.51，P=0.021）。两种药物治疗AIS合并心律失常患者在各项安全性指标方面均未观察到具有统计学意义的差异。其中，瑞替普酶组与阿替普酶组溶栓后36 h内症状性颅内出血的比例分别为1.7%和1.4%（RR 1.07，95%CI 0.07～15.25，P=0.963），溶栓后90 d内死亡率分别为10.2%和5.7%（RR 1.41，95%CI 0.49～4.07，P=0.520）。
结论对于发病4.5 h内的AIS合并心律失常患者，瑞替普酶与阿替普酶的有效性和安全性相似，溶栓治疗中瑞替普酶可考虑作为阿替普酶的替代方案。

文章导读： 本研究是针对RAISE研究的亚组分析，聚焦于AIS合并心律失常患者探究瑞替普酶与阿替普酶的应用效果。研究结果初步显示，两种静脉溶栓药物的有效性和安全性相似，瑞替普酶的出血风险不高于阿替普酶，静脉溶栓治疗中瑞替普酶可考虑作为阿替普酶的替代方案。

关键词: 急性缺血性卒中; 瑞替普酶; 阿替普酶; 心律失常

Abstract: Objective To analyze the efficacy and safety of reteplase versus alteplase in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients complicated with arrhythmia.
Methods The RAISE (reteplase versus alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke within 4.5 hours) study was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, outcome-blinded phase Ⅲ clinical trial designed to compare reteplase and alteplase in the treatment of AIS patients within 4.5 hours of onset. This study was a post-hoc analysis of AIS patients complicated with arrhythmia enrolled in the RAISE study. Patients were divided into the reteplase group and the alteplase group according to the thrombolytic agent administered. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients achieving an mRS score of 0-1 at 90 days post-thrombolysis, and the primary safety outcome was the occurrence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours post-thrombolysis. This study compared the clinical efficacy and safety differences between the two thrombolytic agents in AIS patients complicated with arrhythmia.
Results A total of 129 AIS patients complicated with arrhythmia were included in this study, with 59 cases in the reteplase group and 70 cases in the alteplase group. For the primary efficacy outcome, the proportion of patients achieving an mRS score of 0-1 at 90 days post-thrombolysis in the reteplase group showed a trend toward being higher than that in the alteplase group, but the difference was not statistically significant (68.4% vs. 66.2%, RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.85-1.35, P=0.560). For the secondary efficacy outcome, the proportion of patients with significant neurological improvement (defined as a reduction in NIHSS score≥4 points or an NIHSS score≤1) at 7 days post-thrombolysis was significantly higher in the reteplase group than in the alteplase group (78.9% vs. 61.2%, RR 1.25, 95%CI 1.03-1.51, P=0.021). No statistically significant differences were observed in all safety outcomes between the two thrombolytic agents in the treatment of AIS patients complicated with arrhythmia. Specifically, the rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours post-thrombolysis were 1.7% in the reteplase group and 1.4% in the alteplase group (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.07-15.25, P=0.963), and the mortality within 90 days post-thrombolysis was 10.2% and 5.7%, respectively (RR 1.41, 95%CI 0.49-4.07, P=0.520).
Conclusions For AIS patients complicated with arrhythmia within 4.5 hours of onset, reteplase and alteplase exhibited comparable efficacy and safety. Therefore, reteplase may be considered as an alternative to alteplase in thrombolytic therapy.

Key words: Acute ischemic stroke; Reteplase; Alteplase; Arrhythmia

中图分类号:

赵敏, 冯宝玉, 何丹丹, 王维聪, 李姝雅. 瑞替普酶与阿替普酶治疗急性缺血性卒中合并心律失常患者的有效性及安全性比较[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2026, 21(1): 48-54.

ZHAO Min, FENG Baoyu, HE Dandan, WANG Weicong, LI Shuya. Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Reteplase and Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Complicated with Arrhythmia[J]. Chinese Journal of Stroke, 2026, 21(1): 48-54.

参考文献

[1] 贾建平，陈生弟. 神经病学[M]. 8版. 北京：人民卫生出版社，2018.
JIA J P，CHEN S D. Neurology[M]. 8th ed. Beijing：People’s Medical Publishing House，2018.
[2] 金佳欣，马鹏珍，王尔玉，等. 急性缺血性卒中患者复发的独立影响因素及风险预测列线图模型构建：基于Lasso回归[J]. 南方医科大学学报，2024，44（12）：2375-2381.
JIN J X，MA P Z，WANG E Y，et al. Risk factors of recurrence of acute ischemic stroke and construction of a nomogram model for predicting the recurrence risk based on Lasso regression[J]. J South Med Univ，2024，44（12）：2375-2381.
[3] MIYAZAKI Y，TOYODA K，IGUCHI Y，et al. Atrial fibrillation after ischemic stroke detected by chest strap-style 7-day Holter monitoring and the risk predictors：EDUCATE-ESUS[J]. J Atheroscler Thromb，2021，28（5）：544-554.
[4] MARINHEIRO R，PARREIRA L，AMADOR P，et al. Excessive atrial ectopic activity as an independent risk factor for ischemic stroke[J/OL]. Int J Cardiol，2017，249：226-230[2025-12-30]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.08.054.
[5] VINTHER K H，TVESKOV C，MÖLLER S，et al. Excessive premature atrial complexes and the risk of recurrent stroke or death in an ischemic stroke population[J]. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis，2017，26（6）：1163-1170.
[6] O’NEAL W T，HOWARD V J，KLEINDORFER D，et al. Interrelationship between electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy，QT prolongation，and ischaemic stroke：the reasons for geographic and racial differences in stroke study[J]. Europace，2016，18（5）：767-772.
[7] DAHLIN A A，PARSONS C C，BARENGO N C，et al. Association of ventricular arrhythmia and in-hospital mortality in stroke patients in Florida：a nonconcurrent prospective study[J/OL]. Medicine，2017，96（28）：e7403[2025-12-30]. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007403.
[8] 中华医学会神经病学分会，中华医学会神经病学分会脑血管病学组. 中国急性脑梗死后出血转化诊治共识2019[J]. 中华神经科杂志，2019，52（4）：252-265.
Chinese Society of Neurology，Chinese Stroke Society. Consensus on diagnosis and treatment of hemorrhagic transformation after acute ischemic stroke in China 2019[J]. Chin J Neurol，2019，52（4）：252-265.
[9] SMALLING R W，BODE C，KALBFLEISCH J，et al. More rapid，complete，and stable coronary thrombolysis with bolus administration of reteplase compared with alteplase infusion in acute myocardial infarction[J]. Circulation，1995，91（11）：2725-2732.
[10] BODE C，SMALLING R W，BERG G，et al. Randomized comparison of coronary thrombolysis achieved with double-bolus reteplase（recombinant plasminogen activator）and front-loaded，accelerated alteplase（recombinant tissue plasminogen activator）in patients with acute myocardial infarction[J]. Circulation，1996，94（5）：891-898.
[11] WILCOX R G. Randomised，double-blind comparison of reteplase double-bolus administration with streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction（INJECT）：trial to investigate equivalence：international joint efficacy comparison of thrombolytics[J]. Lancet，1995，346（8971）：329-336.
[12] The Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries（GUSTO Ⅲ）Investigators. A comparison of reteplase with alteplase for acute myocardial infarction[J]. N Engl J Med，1997，337（16）：1118-1123.
[13] LI S Y，GU H Q，LI H，et al. Reteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke[J]. N Engl J Med，2024，390（24）：2264-2273.
[14] ZHANG J B，DING Z Y，YANG Y，et al. Thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation[J]. Neurol Res，2010，32（4）：353-358.
[15] ABILLEIRA S，CARDONA P，RIBÓ M，et al. Outcomes of a contemporary cohort of 536 consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with endovascular therapy[J]. Stroke，2014，45（4）：1046-1052.
[16] YAGHI S，MISTRY E，DE HAVENON A，et al. Effect of alteplase use on outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation：analysis of the initiation of anticoagulation after cardioembolic stroke study[J/OL]. J Am Heart Assoc，2021，10（15）：e020945[2025-12-30]. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.020945.

瑞替普酶与阿替普酶治疗急性缺血性卒中合并心律失常患者的有效性及安全性比较

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Reteplase and Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Complicated with Arrhythmia

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	何丹丹, 许淑红, 李姝雅. 急性缺血性卒中标准时间窗内新型静脉溶栓药物临床研究及展望[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2026, 21(1): 24-29.
[2]	黄旭阳, 李润辉. 替奈普酶与阿替普酶治疗急性缺血性卒中短期神经功能恢复比较：线性混合效应模型分析[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2026, 21(1): 31-37.
[3]	何丹丹, 冯宝玉, 刘改芬, 谷鸿秋, 李姝雅. 中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值对急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓患者预后的预测价值：基于3项随机对照试验的个体患者数据分析[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2026, 21(1): 38-47.
[4]	何丹丹, 李姝雅. 急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓中外周血炎症指标与预后的研究进展[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2026, 21(1): 55-64.
[5]	殷子欣, 鲁珊珊, 施海彬, 吴飞云, 许晓泉. 不同期相CTA脑静脉引流对急性缺血性卒中患者血管内治疗后短期预后的预测价值[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2026, 21(1): 70-77.
[6]	班淇琦, 王苇, 郭远, 厉阳, 苏星月, 瞿航. 构建目标检测模型在NCCT上检测急性小面积梗死灶的研究[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2026, 21(1): 78-87.
[7]	中国卒中学会, 《单唾液酸四己糖神经节苷脂治疗急性缺血性卒中临床应用中国专家共识》专家组. 单唾液酸四己糖神经节苷脂治疗急性缺血性卒中临床应用中国专家共识[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2026, 21(1): 88-98.
[8]	李欢, 于向明. 急性缺血性卒中DWI-FLAIR不匹配影像学判读研究进展[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2025, 20(9): 1198-1202.
[9]	刘安利, 薛茜, 杨金水, 苗瑞瑞, 王欢欢. 抽吸取栓与支架取栓治疗急性缺血性卒中有效性及安全性的meta分析[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2025, 20(8): 992-1005.
[10]	李子恒, 刘毅. 急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓后早期抗血小板治疗的研究现状与展望[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2025, 20(8): 1042-1050.
[11]	熊俞婷, 程爱春, 尹金风, 李子孝, 王春娟, 张静. BMI与急性缺血性卒中静脉溶栓患者院内结局的关系——基于中国卒中中心联盟登记数据库的分析[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2025, 20(8): 1066-1072.
[12]	杨志进, 谭荃丹, 毛凤凯, 李朝晖, 陈晨, 李刚, 杨杰, 林亚鹏. 急性缺血性卒中超早期血压管理研究进展[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2025, 20(7): 829-839.
[13]	胡燕琴, 王铄, 赵陶丽, 郭东兴, 李申, 金振波. 丁苯酞序贯治疗急性缺血性卒中有效性和安全性的meta分析[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2025, 20(6): 753-761.
[14]	董漪, 董强. 中国卒中临床研究中的溶栓治疗：20年的成就与发展方向[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2025, 20(5): 549-554.
[15]	蒋兰, 傅新民, 孙梦飞, 李怡萍. 大脑中动脉闭塞性急性缺血性卒中血管内治疗后不良预后的危险因素分析及预测模型开发[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2025, 20(4): 418-427.