Patients with Acute Lacunar Infarction Have Benefit from Intravenous Thrombolysis.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION\nUsefulness of intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute lacunar cerebral infarction is questionable. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis in patients with lacunar infarction in comparison with patients with nonlacunar infarction as well as with patients with lacunar infarction who were not treated with intravenous thrombolysis.\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nIn the first part of the study, among patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis, characteristics and outcomes of 46 patients with lacunar and 221 patients with nonlacunar infarction were compared. In the second part, 46 patients with lacunar infarction treated with intravenous thrombolysis were compared with 45 lacunar infarction patients who were not treated with intravenous thrombolysis.\n\n\nRESULTS\nPatients with lacunar infarction had a lower National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (9.2 versus 13.9, P < .001), a greater Alberta Stroke Program Early computed tomography (CT) score (9.7 versus 9.2, P\u202f=\u202f.002), a lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation (6.5% versus 41.2%, P < .001), and significantly more frequently an excellent outcome after 3 months (76.1% versus 36.2%, P < .001) compared with patients with nonlacunar infarction. Among patients with lacunar infarction, an excellent outcome at discharge was significantly more frequent in the intravenous thrombolysis group (41.3% versus 15.6%, P\u202f=\u202f.01), and the length of hospitalization was significantly shorter (9.5 days versus 14.3 days, P\u202f=\u202f.002). There was no hemorrhagic transformation among patients with lacunar infarction treated with intravenous thrombolysis.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nIntravenous thrombolysis has proven to be effective and safe in patients with lacunar infarction and should always be applied if there are no absolute contraindications.