Dataset Information

Percutaneous vascular interventions versus intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Most ischaemic strokes are caused by blockage of a cerebral artery by a thrombus. Intravenous administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator given within 4.5 hours is now standard treatment for this condition. Percutaneous vascular interventions use an intra-arterial, mechanical approach for thrombus disruption or removal (thrombectomy). Recent randomised trials indicate that percutaneous vascular interventions are superior to usual care (usual care usually included intravenous thrombolysis). However, intravenous thrombolysis was usually given in both arms of the trial and there was a lack of direct comparison of percutaneous vascular interventions with intravenous thrombolysis.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous vascular interventions compared with intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last search: August 2018). In addition, in September 2017, we searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index; and Stroke Trials Registry, and US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared a percutaneous vascular intervention with intravenous thrombolytic treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We obtained both published and unpublished data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

Main results

We included four trials with 450 participants. Data on functional outcome and death at end of follow-up were available for 443 participants from three trials. Compared with intravenous thrombolytic therapy, percutaneous vascular intervention did not improve the proportion of participants with good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 2, risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.25, P = 0.92). The quality of evidence was low (outcome assessment was blinded, but not the treating physician or participants). At the end of follow-up, there was a non-significant increase in the proportion of participants who died in the percutaneous vascular intervention group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.14, P = 0.21). The quality of evidence was low (wide confidence interval). There was no difference in the proportion of participants with symptomatic intracranial haemorrhages between the intervention and control groups (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.95, P = 0.97). The quality of evidence was low (wide confidence interval). Data on vascular status (recanalisation rate) were only available for seven participants from one trial; we considered this inadequate for statistical analyses.

Authors' conclusions

The present review directly compared intravenous thrombolytic treatment with percutaneous vascular interventions for ischaemic stroke. We found no evidence from RCTs that percutaneous vascular interventions are superior to intravenous thrombolytic treatment with respect to functional outcome. Quality of evidence was low (outcome assessment was blinded, but not the treating physician or participants). New trials with adequate sample sizes are warranted because of the rapid development of new techniques and devices for such interventions.

SUBMITTER: Lindekleiv H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6516947 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (r-tPA) and urokinase (UK) are both recommended for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) in China, but with few comparative outcome data being available. We aimed to compare the outcomes of these two thrombolytic agents for the treatment of patients within 4.5 hours of onset of AIS in routine clinical practice in China.MethodsA pre-planned, prospective, nationwide, multicentre, real-world registry of consecutive patients with AIS (age ≥18 years) who received r-tPA or UK within 4.5 hours of symptom onset according to local decision-making and guideline recommendations during 2017-2019. The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of patients with an excellent functional outcome (defined by modified Rankin scale scores 0 to 1) at 90 days. The key safety endpoint was symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage according to standard definitions. Multivariable logistic regression was used for comparative analysis, with adjustment according to propensity scores to ensure balance in baseline characteristics.ResultsOverall, 4130 patients with AIS were registered but 320 had incomplete or missing data, leaving 3810 with available data for analysis of whom 2666 received r-tPA (median dose 0.88 (IQR 0.78-0.90) mg/kg) and 1144 received UK (1.71 (1.43-2.00)×104 international unit per kilogram). There were several significant intergroup differences in patient characteristics: r-tPA patients were more educated, had less history of stroke, lower systolic blood pressure, greater neurological impairment and shorter treatment times from symptom onset than UK patients. However, in adjusted analysis, the frequency of excellent outcome (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.40, p=0.052) and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.47, p=0.344) were similar between groups.ConclusionsUK may be as effective and carry a similar safety profile as r-tPA in treating mild to moderate AIS within guidelines in China. REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. unique identifier: NCT02854592.

Project description:ObjectivesWake-up stroke is an important clinical problem that may account for a quarter of all ischemic strokes. This study aimed to establish the safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolytic treatment of wake-up strokes by comparing it to the standard thrombolysis treatment in strokes with clear onsets and wake-up strokes that did not receive reperfusion therapy.MethodsThis retrospective study enrolled 95 patients with ischemic strokes who underwent thrombolytic treatment with alteplase, including nine patients with wake-up strokes. The safety profile (mortality and intracranial bleeding) and efficacy (clinical and functional outcomes on admission, discharge, and 90 days after stroke onset) were evaluated.ResultsWhen assessed using the modified Rankin scale (mRs), the patients with wake-up strokes had significantly more favorable functional outcomes on discharge when compared to those who received standard thrombolysis (p = .0289). No significant differences were noted when the favorable outcome rate (mRs score = 0-2) at three months post-thrombolysis (Odds ratio [OR] = 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.41-10.6; p = .3807) and safety outcomes (death during hospitalization: OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.03-9.11; p = .6295 and intracranial bleeding 24 hr after treatment: OR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.02-7.58; p = .5707) were compared between the two groups. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenchel shift analysis showed a significantly more favorable distribution of the mRs scores at three months after the stroke onset in the patients with wake-up strokes who were treated with alteplase compared to those who did not receive thrombolysis (OR = 1.42; 95% CI = 1.01-1.82; p = .0426).ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that in patients who awaken with stroke symptoms, intravenous thrombolytic treatment is a safe procedure that may lead to favorable outcomes. Further studies should be performed to increase the size of the group of patients with wake-up strokes who can be treated with reperfusion therapy.

Project description:BackgroundRates of thrombolysis in most countries are well below best practice benchmarks. We aimed to investigate thrombolysis utilization and its associated factors in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients in Hubei province, China, to assess neurologists' experiences of the treatment, and to identify barriers against the treatment from perspective of AIS patients and neurologists.MethodsSurvey of 2096 AIS patients and 709 neurologists from 66 hospitals was conducted in Hubei province between 2014 and 2015. A multivariable logistic regression model was utilized to identify the factors associated with thrombolysis utilization and neurologists' experiences with thrombolysis.ResultsOf the 2096 AIS patients, only 3.8% received thrombolysis. Of the 709 neurologists, 66.0% reported using thrombolysis for AIS patients. The main reasons for not using thrombolysis were late arrival of patients, fear of the risk of complications of thrombolysis, and light or quickly recovered stroke symptoms. The behavior and clinical characteristics of patients, including early admission to hospital (odds ratio [OR] = 5.81, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 3.31-10.20), using emergency medical services to be hospitalized (OR = 3.36, 95% CI 2.00-5.62), stroke history (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-0.99), and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score < 4 (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.77) were shown to significantly affect the thrombolysis utilization in the multivariate model. In addition, hospital grade (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.84-4.37), education level (OR = 2.49, 95% CI 1.09-5.73), and working years (OR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.18-3.00) were strongly associated with neurologists' experiences of thrombolysis.ConclusionsA very low proportion of AIS patients received thrombolysis in Hubei province, China. Considerable education programs and interventions were required regarding knowledge of stroke treatment for clinicians and proper behavior after stroke for AIS patients and their families.