Dataset Information

Two Paradigms for Endovascular Thrombectomy After Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Intravenous 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.

Objective

To 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 participants

This 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 measures

The 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.

Results

During 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 relevance

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Gerschenfeld G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5822198 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:ImportanceThe benefit of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke declines with longer time from symptom onset, but it is not known whether a similar time dependency exists for IVT followed by thrombectomy.ObjectiveTo determine whether the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone decreases with treatment time from symptom onset.Design, setting, and participantsIndividual participant data meta-analysis from 6 randomized clinical trials comparing IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone. Enrollment was between January 2017 and July 2021 at 190 sites in 15 countries. All participants were eligible for IVT and thrombectomy and presented directly at thrombectomy-capable stroke centers (n = 2334). For this meta-analysis, only patients with an anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion were included (n = 2313).ExposureInterval from stroke symptom onset to expected administration of IVT and treatment with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome analysis tested whether the association between the allocated treatment (IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone) and disability at 90 days (7-level modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]; minimal clinically important difference for the rates of mRS scores of 0-2: 1.3%) varied with times from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT.ResultsIn 2313 participants (1160 in IVT plus thrombectomy group vs 1153 in thrombectomy alone group; median age, 71 [IQR, 62 to 78] years; 44.3% were female), the median time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT was 2 hours 28 minutes (IQR, 1 hour 46 minutes to 3 hours 17 minutes). There was a statistically significant interaction between the time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT and the association of allocated treatment with functional outcomes (ratio of adjusted common odds ratio [OR] per 1-hour delay, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.97], P = .02 for interaction). The benefit of IVT plus thrombectomy decreased with longer times from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT (adjusted common OR for a 1-step mRS score shift toward improvement, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.13 to 1.96] at 1 hour, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.49] at 2 hours, and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.23] at 3 hours). For a mRS score of 0, 1, or 2, the predicted absolute risk difference was 9% (95% CI, 3% to 16%) at 1 hour, 5% (95% CI, 1% to 9%) at 2 hours, and 1% (95% CI, -3% to 5%) at 3 hours. After 2 hours 20 minutes, the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy was not statistically significant and the point estimate crossed the null association at 3 hours 14 minutes.Conclusions and relevanceIn patients presenting at thrombectomy-capable stroke centers, the benefit associated with IVT plus thrombectomy vs thrombectomy alone was time dependent and statistically significant only if the time from symptom onset to expected administration of IVT was short.