Are you William Hu?

Claim your profile

Publications (3)18.49 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There is an increasing trend to treating proximal vessel occlusions with intravenous-inter-arterial (IV-IA) thrombolysis. The best dose of IV tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) remains undetermined. We compared the combination of full-dose IV recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) and IA thrombolytic therapy to IA therapy. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2009, we reviewed our computed tomographic angiography database for patients who received full-dose intravenous rtPA and endovascular therapy or endovascular therapy alone for acute ischaemic stroke treatment. Details of demographics, risk factors, endovascular procedure, and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage were noted. Modified Rankin Scale ≤2 at three-months was used as good outcome. Recanalization was defined as Thrombolysis in Myocardial Ischaemia 2-3 flow on angiography. RESULTS: Among 157 patients, 104 patients received IV-IA treatment and 53 patients underwent direct IA therapy. There was a higher recanalization rate with IV-IA therapy compared with IA alone (71% vs. 60%, P < 0·21) which was driven by early recanalization after IV rtPA. Mortality and independent outcome were comparable between the two groups. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 8% of patients (12% in the IA group, 7% in the IV-IA group) but was more frequent as the intensity of intervention increased from device alone to thrombolytic drug alone to device plus thrombolytic drug(s). Recanalization was a strong predictor of reduced mortality risk ratio (RR) 0·48 confidence interval(95) 0·27-0·84) and favourable outcome (RR 2·14 confidence interval(95) 1·3-3·5). CONCLUSIONS: Combined IV-IA therapy with full-dose intravenous rtPA was safe and results in good recanalization rates without excess symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. Testing of full-dose IV tPA followed by endovascular treatment in the IMS3 trial is justified.
    International Journal of Stroke 09/2012; · 4.03 Impact Factor
  • Neurology 07/2003; 60(12):2011. · 8.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intravenous alteplase for acute ischemic stroke is least efficacious for patients with proximal large-artery occlusions and clinically severe strokes. Intra-arterial therapy has the theoretical advantage of establishing a neurovascular diagnosis and high symptomatic artery patency rate but the disadvantage of requiring extra time and technical expertise. A combination of these two approaches may provide the best chance of improving outcome in severe acute ischemic stroke. We sought to assess the safety and feasibility of this approach. This was a prospective, open-label study. Sequential patients arriving to our center within 3 hours of stroke onset who were treated with intravenous alteplase were screened for possible additional intra-arterial therapy using noninvasive neuroimaging. Clinical measures and outcomes were recorded prospectively. A total of 861 patients with ischemic stroke were admitted to Calgary hospitals during the study period. Eight patients over 21 months underwent a combined intravenous-intra-arterial approach. Six received intra-arterial alteplase and 1 underwent intracranial angioplasty; in a final patient, technical aspects prevented intra-arterial therapy. Early neurovascular and/or neurometabolic imaging identified the location of occlusion and tissue-at-risk (DWI-PWI mismatch) in all 8 patients. Two patients had a poor outcome, 1 patient suffered a significant groin hematoma, and there were no instances of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Intravenous followed by intra-arterial therapy is a promising approach to the treatment of severe acute ischemic stroke. Early noninvasive neurovascular and neurometabolic imaging is very helpful in choosing candidates for this type of therapy. On-going monitoring of alteplase-treated patients may allow the opportunity to perform rescue intra-arterial therapy.
    Stroke 02/2002; 33(1):279-82. · 6.16 Impact Factor