Characteristics and Outcomes of Thrombolysis-Treated Stroke Patients With and Without Saccular Intracranial Aneurysms

Abstract

Background: Intravenous thrombolysis seems safe in acute ischemic stroke patients with saccular, unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs), but little is known about the differences in cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes between intravenous thrombolysis-treated stroke patients with and without UIAs. We hypothesized that UIA patients would have a higher burden of cardiovascular risk factors and, therefore, a higher risk of an unfavorable outcome. Methods: In this prospective cohort study conducted in Helsinki University Hospital, we identified intravenous thrombolysis-treated patients with concurrent saccular UIAs admitted to a comprehensive stroke center between 2005 and 2019 using 2 overlapping methods. For each UIA patient, a control patient was identified and matched (1:1) for age, sex, admission year, and stroke severity. The primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome at 3 months, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 3 to 6. The secondary outcomes were an excellent outcome (mRS score 0-1) at 3 months and mRS difference in shift analysis. Results: In total, 118 UIA patients and 118 matched control patients were identified. The UIA patients were more often current smokers, and their admission systolic blood pressure was higher. The rate of hemorrhagic complications did not differ between the groups. UIAs were not associated with an unfavorable outcome in the conditional logistic regression analysis (odds ratio, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.79-2.54]; P=0.25). However, the UIA patients were less likely to have excellent outcomes (odds ratio for non-excellent outcome, 2.09 [95% CI, 1.13-3.85]; P=0.02). In shift analysis, UIAs were associated with higher mRS (odds ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.03-2.49]; P=0.04). Conclusions: The intravenous thrombolysis-treated stroke patients with UIAs were more often current smokers and had higher systolic blood pressure than the matched patients without UIAs. They were as likely to have unfavorable outcomes at 3 months but seemed less likely to achieve excellent outcomes and were more likely to have higher mRS in shift analysis.