Outcomes and risk factors of perforating and non-perforating middle cerebral artery infarctions after intravenous thrombolysis

The clinical symptoms of perforating arteries differ, and responses to intravenous thrombolytic therapy are heterogeneous. Here, we investigated the effect of intravenous thrombolytic therapy and the related factors influencing acute perforating and non-perforating middle cerebral artery infarctions. We analyzed 320 patients with acute middle cerebral artery infarction who received alteplase thrombolysis within 4.5 h of onset at two stroke centers from January 2016 to December 2019. Outcome measures included rates of a favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale scores of 0–2), distribution of modified Rankin Scale scores, intracranial hemorrhage, and symptomatic cerebral hemorrhage at 14 days, with comparisons between perforating artery and non-perforating artery cerebral infarction groups. In the perforating vessel disease group, 12 cases (17.4%) of intracranial hemorrhage occurred, with symptomatic cerebral hemorrhage in three cases (4.3%); there were no significant differences between the perforating and non-perforating vessel disease groups (all P > 0.05). In the perforating vessel disease group, the only significant prognostic factor was the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score before thrombolysis (Exp(B) = 1.365; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.124–1.659; P = 0.002), and the only significant risk factor for hemorrhagic transformation was previous perforator disease (Exp(B) = 0.078; P = 0.038). Regardless of whether an acute infarction is perforating or non-perforating, intravenous thrombolytic therapy can yield a favorable outcome. Therefore, intravenous thrombolysis should be actively administered to treat perforating artery infarctions with a high risk of disability.