Efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background and purpose
Although endovascular therapy (ET) is increasingly used in patients with moderate to severe acute ischemic stroke, its efficacy and safety remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis aiming to compare the benefits and safety of endovascular treatment and intravenous thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.Methods
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Science direct and Springer unitil July, 2013. The primary outcomes included good outcome (mRS ≤ 2) and excellent outcome (mRS ≤ 1) at 90 days or at trial end point. Secondary outcomes were occurrence of symptomatic hemorrhage and all-cause mortality.Results
Using a prespecified search strategy, 5 RCTs with 1106 patients comparing ET and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) were included in the meta-analysis. ET and IVT were associated with similar good (43.06% vs 41.78%; OR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69; P=0.52;) and excellent (30.43% vs 30.42%; OR=1.05; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.38; P=0.72;) outcome. For additional end points, ET was not associated with increased occurrence of symptomatic hemorrhage (6.25% vs. 6.22%; OR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.69; P=0.91;), or all-cause mortality (18.45% vs. 17.35%; OR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.39; P=0.99;).Conclusions
Formal meta-analysis indicates that there are similar safety outcomes and functional independence with endovascular therapy and intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.
SUBMITTER: Lin C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3814965 | biostudies-literature | 2013
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Lin Chao C Li Nan N Wang Kang K Zhao Xin X Li Bai-Qiang BQ Sun Lei L Lin Yi-Xing YX Fan Jie-Mei JM Zhang Miao M Sun Hai-Chen HC
PloS one 20131031 10
<h4>Background and purpose</h4>Although endovascular therapy (ET) is increasingly used in patients with moderate to severe acute ischemic stroke, its efficacy and safety remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis aiming to compare the benefits and safety of endovascular treatment and intravenous thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Science direct and Springer unitil July, 2013. The primary outcomes included goo ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe current guideline recommended the use of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), but the effectiveness and safety of tenecteplase compare to alteplase in patients before EVT remain uncertain.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible articles from inception until September 16, 2023. The primary outcome was functional independence (mRS 0-2) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included excellent outcome (mRS 0-1) at 90 days, all-cause mortality at follow-up, successful reperfusion (TICI 2b-3) after the end of EVT, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) or any intracranial hemorrhage (aICH). The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42023470419.ResultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included involving 2,836 acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. Compared to EVT alone, tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg and 0.4 mg/kg) + EVT and 0.9 mg/kg alteplase + EVT were significant difference associated with higher successful reperfusion (TICI 2b-3) after the end of EVT (RR = 2.31; 95% CI 1.15-4.63; RR = 2.31; 95% CI 1.00-5.33; RR = 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.09). And compared to 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase + EVT, alteplase (0.6 mg/kg and 0.9 mg/kg) + EVT were significant difference associated with lower successful reperfusion (TICI 2b-3) after the end of EVT (RR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.22-0.90; RR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.91). The risk of aICH (RR = 1.50; 95% CI 1.07-2.09) was significantly higher for 0.6 mg/kg alteplase + EVT than EVT alone. There was no significant difference in functional independence (mRS 0-2), excellent outcome (mRS 0-1), all-cause mortality or sICH among the different IVT strategies (0.25 mg/kg or 0.4 mg/kg tenecteplase and 0.6 mg/kg or 0.9 mg/kg alteplase) before EVT.ConclusionThe use of alteplase before EVT may potentially improve the successful reperfusion after EVT compared to tenecteplase. Due to the insufficient sample size, more high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm effectiveness and safety of tenecteplase compare to alteplase in patients before EVT.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42023470419.
| S-EPMC10860706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIntravenous thrombolysis (IVT) followed by mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is recommended to treat acute ischemic stroke (AIS) with a large vessel occlusion (LVO). Most hospitals do not have on-site MT facilities, and most patients need to be transferred secondarily after IVT (drip and ship), which may have an effect on the neurologic outcome.ObjectiveTo compare the functional independence at 3 months between patients treated under the drip-and-ship paradigm and those treated on site (mothership).Design, setting, and participantsThis study used a prospectively gathered registry of patients with AIS to select patients admitted through the Saint-Antoine and Tenon (drip and ship) or the Fondation Rothschild (mothership) hospitals from January 1, 2013, through April 30, 2016. The study included patients older than 18 years treated with bridging therapy for AIS with LVO of the anterior circulation. Among the 159 patients who received MT at the mothership, 100 had been transferred after IVT from the drip-and-ship hospitals and 59 had received IVT on site.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was 3-month functional independence (modified Rankin scale score ≤2). Both groups were compared using a multivariate linear model, including variables that were significantly different in the 2 groups.ResultsDuring the study period, 497 patients were hospitalized at the drip-and-ship and mothership hospitals for an AIS eligible to reperfusion therapy; 11 patients had a basilar artery occlusion and were excluded, leaving 100 patients in the drip-and-ship group (mean age, 73 years; age range, 60-81 years; 57 men [57.0%]) and 59 in the mothership group (mean age, 70 years; age range, 58-82 years; 29 men [49.2%]). The proportion of patients with a favorable neurologic outcome at 3 months was similar in both groups (drip and ship, 61 [61.0%]; mothership, 30 [50.8%]; P = .26), even after adjusting the analysis for the baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, diffusion-weighted imaging Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score, and general anesthesia (P = .82). Patients had less severe conditions in the drip-and-ship group (median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 15 vs 17 [P = .03]; median diffusion-weighted imaging Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score, 7.5 vs 7 [P = .05]). Process times were longer in the drip-and-ship group (onset-to-needle time, 150 vs 135 minutes; onset-to-puncture time, 248 vs 189 minutes; and onset-to-recanalization time, 297 vs 240 minutes; P < .001). Both groups were similar in terms of substantial recanalization (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia scores 2B to 3; drip and ship, 84 [84.0%]; mothership, 47 [79.7%]; P = .49) and symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation (drip and ship, 2 [2.0%]; mothership, 2 [3.4%]; P = .63).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that patients treated under the drip-and-ship paradigm also benefit from bridging therapy, with no statistically significant difference compared with those treated directly in a comprehensive stroke center.
| S-EPMC5822198 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe optimal timing for decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) remains unclear. This study in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with IVT aimed to assess the safety of DHC and patient outcome.MethodsData was extracted from the Tabriz stroke registry from June 2011 up to September 2020. In all, 881 patients were treated with IVT. Among these, 23 patients underwent DH. Six patients were excluded due to symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (parenchymal hematoma type 2 based on SITS-MOST definition) after IVT, but other types of bleeding after venous thrombolysis, including HI1, HI2, and PH1 were not excluded; so the remaining 17 patients were enrolled in the study. Functional Outcome was defined as the proportion of patients who achieved mRS score of 2-3 (moderate disability), 4-5 (severe disability), or 6 (mortality) at 90 days after stroke. mRSwas assess by trained neurologist at the hospital clinic with direct interview Safety outcome was assessed by comparison of two scans just prior to and after craniectomy. Any new hemorrhage or worsening of previous hemorrhage was reported. Parenchymal hematoma type 2, based on ECASS II definition, was considered as major surgical complication. This study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (Ethics Code: IR.TBZMED.REC.1398.420).ResultsAt the three-month mRS follow up, six patients (35%) had moderate and five (29%) had severe disability. The outcome of death was observed in six patients (35%).Nine of 15 patients (60%) underwent surgery in the first 48 hours after onset of symptoms. No patient over 60 years of age survived to the three-month follow up; 67% of those who were under60 years and underwent DH in the first 48 hours had favorable outcome. Hemorrhagic complication was seen in 64% of patients but none was major.ConclusionResults of this study showed that the rate of major bleeding and outcome of acute ischemic stroke patients who underwent DHC after IVT is comparable with the reported data in the literature and intentionally waiting for the fibrinolytic effects of IVT to disappear may not outweigh the benefits of DHC. Although the findings of the study should be interpreted with caution and larger studies are needed to confirm the results.
| S-EPMC10045929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purpose: It is unclear whether endovascular thrombectomy alone compared with intravenous thrombolysis combination with endovascular thrombectomy can achieve similar neurological outcomes in patients with acute large vessel occlusion stroke. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare endovascular thrombectomy alone or intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular thrombectomy in this population. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We restricted our search to randomized clinical trials that examined the clinical outcomes of endovascular thrombectomy alone vs. intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular thrombectomy. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess study quality. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for evaluating all outcomes. Results: Total three randomized controlled trials with 1,092 individuals enrolled were included in the meta-analysis, including 543 (49.7%) who received endovascular thrombectomy alone and 549 (50.3%) who received intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular thrombectomy. The primary outcome of 90-day functional independence (modified Rankin scale (mRS) score ≤ 2) was 44.6% (242/543) in the endovascular thrombectomy alone group vs. 42.8% (235/549) in the alteplase with endovascular thrombectomy group (odds ratio (OR), 1.08 [95% CI, 0.85-1.38]; P = 0.0539). Among pre-specified secondary outcomes, no significant between-group differences were found in excellent outcome (mRS score ≤ 1) (OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.85-1.47]; P = 0.418), mortality at 90 days (OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.68-1.29]; P = 0.673), successful reperfusion (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b-3) (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.54-1.05]; P = 0.099), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.45-1.15]; P = 0.171). Conclusions: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke in the anterior circulation within 4.5 h from the onset, endovascular thrombectomy alone was non-inferior to combined intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy.
| S-EPMC8710447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn patients with stroke attributable to cervical artery dissection, we compared endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis regarding three-month outcome, recanalisation and complications.Materials and methodsIn a multicentre intravenous thrombolysis/endovascular therapy-register-based cohort study, all consecutive cervical artery dissection patients with intracranial artery occlusion treated within 6 h were eligible for analysis. Endovascular therapy patients (with or without prior intravenous thrombolysis) were compared to intravenous thrombolysis patients regarding (i) excellent three-month outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1), (ii) symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, (iii) recanalisation of the occluded intracranial artery and (iv) death. Upon a systematic literature review, we performed a meta-analysis comparing endovascular therapy to intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients regarding three-month outcome using a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model.ResultsAmong 62 cervical artery dissection patients (median age 48.8 years), 24 received intravenous thrombolysis and 38 received endovascular therapy. Excellent three-month outcome occurred in 23.7% endovascular therapy and 20.8% with intravenous thrombolysis patients. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred solely among endovascular therapy patients (5/38 patients, 13.2%) while four (80%) of these patients had bridging therapy; 6/38 endovascular therapy and 0/24 intravenous thrombolysis patients died. Four of these 6 endovascular therapy patients had bridging therapy. Recanalisation was achieved in 84.2% endovascular therapy patients and 66.7% intravenous thrombolysis patients (odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval [0.9-11.38]). Sensitivity analyses in a subgroup treated within 4.5 h revealed a higher recanalisation rate among endovascular therapy patients (odds ratio 3.87, 95% confidence interval [1.00-14.95]), but no change in the key clinical findings. In a meta-analysis across eight studies (n = 212 patients), cervical artery dissection patients (110 intravenous thrombolysis and 102 endovascular therapy) showed identical odds for favourable outcome (odds ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.38-2.44]) among endovascular therapy patients and intravenous thrombolysis patients.Discussion and conclusionIn this cohort study, there was no clear signal of superiority of endovascular therapy over intravenous thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection patients, which - given the limitation of our sample size - does not prove that endovascular therapy in these patients cannot be superior in future studies. The observation that symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage and deaths in the endovascular therapy group occurred predominantly in bridging patients requires further investigation.
| S-EPMC6453244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeTimely intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke is associated with better clinical outcomes. Acute stroke care implemented with "Stroke Code" (SC) may increase IV tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) administration. The present study aimed to investigate the impact of SC on thrombolysis.MethodsThe study period was divided into the "pre-SC era" (January 2006 to July 2010) and "SC era" (August 2010 to July 2013). Demographics, critical times (stroke symptom onset, presentation to the emergency department, neuroimaging, thrombolysis), stroke severity, and clinical outcomes were recorded and compared between the two eras.ResultsDuring the study period, 5957 patients with acute ischemic stroke were admitted; of these, 1301 (21.8%) arrived at the emergency department within 3 h of stroke onset and 307 (5.2%) received IV-tPA. The number and frequency of IV-tPA treatments for patients with an onset-to-door time of <3 h increased from the pre-SC era (n?=?91, 13.9%) to the SC era (n?=?216, 33.3%) (P<0.001). SC also improved the efficiency of IV-tPA administration; the median door-to-needle time decreased (88 to 51 min, P<0.001) and the percentage of door-to-needle times ?60 min increased (14.3% to 71.3%, P<0.001). The SC era group tended to have more patients with good outcome (modified Rankin Scale ?2) at discharge (49.5 vs. 39.6%, P?=?0.11), with no difference in symptomatic hemorrhage events or in-hospital mortality.ConclusionThe SC protocol increases the percentage of acute ischemic stroke patients receiving IV-tPA and decreases door-to-needle time.
| S-EPMC4128738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) combined with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS).MethodsPatients with AIS who underwent IVT were enrolled and 1:1 randomized to the RIC group and sham-RIC group in this study. RIC (or sham-RIC) was performed twice within 6-24 h of IVT. The subjects in the two groups were followed up for 90 days. The safety outcome included the ratio of hemorrhagic transformation (HT), adverse events during the follow-up, blood pressure within the first 24 h after IVT, and laboratory tests 24 h after IVT. The efficacy outcome included the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score during the follow-up, and level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) tested 24 h after IVT.ResultsForty-nine patients (24 in the RIC group and 25 in the sham-RIC group) were recruited. No significant difference was observed in the ratio of HT, adverse events, blood pressure, coagulation function or liver function between groups. In addition, there was no significant difference in mRS score and NIHSS score during the follow-up between groups. However, patients in the RIC group exhibited a significant lower level of hs-CRP compared with the control group (P = 0.048).InterpretationRIC combined with IVT is safe in the treatment of AIS. The neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects of this therapy warrant further study on a larger scale.
| S-EPMC7318096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in cancer patients remained uncertain due to low level evidence in the latest guideline for AIS. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of IVT in cancer patients with stronger evidence. We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov until April 2020 for studies reporting outcomes of functional independence, hemorrhagic transformation (HT), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), major bleeding (MB), in-hospital mortality or 3-month mortality after IVT for AIS in cancer patients. For each outcome, the odds ratio between cancer and non-cancer patients, the risk difference between gastrointestinal and other malignancy, and the proportion in cancer patients were calculated. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between cancer and non-cancer patients in favorable outcome, HT, SICH, MB, in-hospital mortality and 3-month mortality. Furthermore, there's no significant difference between patients with gastrointestinal and other malignancy in favorable outcome, HT, SICH, MB and 3-month mortality. In race-based subgroup analysis, Asians implied greater likelihood of HT and SICH than non-Asians. Therefore, the study confirmed and strengthened the validity of the guideline with stronger evidence that cancer shouldn't be an exclusion criterion of IVT. Inconsistent with the guideline, gastrointestinal malignancy may not remain an absolute contraindication of IVT while Asians implied increased HT and SICH, which needed further exploration.
| S-EPMC7476124 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe aimed to investigate effects of deep white matter hyperintensity (DWMH) and periventricular hyperintensity (PVH) on the efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS).MethodsA total of 113 AIS patients with WMH were categorized into the PVH group and the DWMH group according to the lesion location, with the division of two subgroups based on whether or not they received IVT treatment: the thrombolysis group and the control group. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used for proportional hazards of recurrent stroke. Further, multivariate Cox regression analysis was employed.ResultsOf total patients, there were 62 PVH patients and 51 DWMH patients: 27 of PVH patients and 22 of DWMH patients received IVT, and the remaining patients only received routine treatment. DWMH patients had a higher risk of END (36.4% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.034) and HT (22.7% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.038) than PVH patients in the thrombolysis group. Moreover, DWMH patients undergoing IVT also had a higher risk of END (36.4% vs. 10.3%; x2 = 5.050; p = 0.025) and HT (22.7% vs. 3.4%; x2 = 4.664; p = 0.031) than DWMH patients without IVT. Again, PVH patients had a higher rate of recurrent stroke (20.0% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.034) than DWMH patients in the control group after 90-day follow-up. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significant difference in cumulative probability of no major endpoint events (p = 0.039). Further, multivariate Cox regression revealed that PVH is an independent risk factor for stroke recurrence in AIS patients after adjusting confounding factors.ConclusionsThe location of WMH is closely associated with the efficacy of IVT in AIS patients.
| S-EPMC6305931 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe safety and efficacy of tirofiban in intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) bridging to mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is unknown. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirofiban in IVT bridging to mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wan Fang databases for randomized controlled trials and observational studies (case-control studies and cohort studies) comparing the tirofiban and non-tirofiban groups in AIS intravenous thrombolysis bridging to mechanical thrombectomy (Published by November 20, 2021). Our primary safety endpoints were symptomatic cerebral hemorrhage (sICH), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), postoperative re-occlusion, and 3-month mortality; the efficacy endpoints were 3-month favorable functional outcome (MRS ≤ 2) and successful recanalization rate (modified thrombolytic therapy in cerebral infarction (mTICI) 2b or 3).ResultsA total of 7 studies with 1,176 patients were included in this meta-analysis. A comprehensive analysis of the included literature showed that the difference between the tirofiban and non-tirofiban groups in terms of successful recanalization (OR = 1.19, 95% Cl [0.69, 2.03], p = 0.53, I 2 = 22%) and favorable functional outcome at 3 months (OR = 1.13, 95% Cl [0.81, 1.60], p = 0.47, I 2 = 17%) in patients with IVT bridging mechanical thrombectomy of AIS was not statistically significant. Also, the differences in the incidence of sICH (OR = 0.97, 95% Cl [0.58, 1.62], p = 0.89) and ICH (OR = 0.83, 95% Cl [0.55, 1.24], p = 0.36) between the two groups were not statistically significant. However, the use of tirofiban during IVT bridging mechanical thrombectomy reduced the rate of postoperative re-occlusion (OR = 0.36, 95% Cl [0.14, 0.91], p = 0.03) and mortality within 3 months (OR = 0.54, 95% Cl [0.33, 0.87], p = 0.01) in patients.ConclusionThe use of tirofiban during IVT bridging mechanical thrombectomy for AIS does not increase the risk of sICH and ICH in patients and reduces the risk of postoperative re-occlusion and mortality in patients within 3 months. However, this result needs to be further confirmed by additional large-sample, multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trials.Systematic review registrationhttp://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022297441.
| S-EPMC9099208 | biostudies-literature