Endovascular Thrombectomy Versus Bridging Thrombolysis: Real-World Efficacy and Safety Analysis Based on a Nationwide Registry Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Geng C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7955444 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeIt is unclear whether stroke patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) should receive bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), if eligible. This study aims at analyzing the impact of bridging IVT on short-term clinical outcome.MethodsIn a prospective regional stroke registry, all stroke patients with premorbid modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 who were admitted within 4.5 h after onset and treated with EVT were analyzed retrospectively. Patients receiving "IVT prior to EVT" (IVEVT) were compared to those undergoing "EVT only" regarding the ratio of good outcome, discharge mRS, mRS shift, hospital mortality, and occurrence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.ResultsIn total, 2022 patients were included, 816 patients (40.4%) achieved good clinical outcome; 1293 patients (63.9%) received bridging IVT. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the ratio of good outcome (IVEVT 41.4% vs. EVT 38.5%, P = 0.231), discharge mRS (median, IVEVT 3 vs. EVT 3, P = 0.178), mRS shift (median, IVEVT 3 vs. EVT 3, P = 0.960), and hospital mortality (IVEVT 19.3% vs. EVT 19.5%, P = 0.984). Bridging IVT was not a predictor of outcome (adjusted OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79-1.26, P = 0.979). However, it was an independent predictor of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.21-2.72, P = 0.005).ConclusionsThe results of the present study suggest that bridging IVT does not seem to improve short-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing EVT. Nonetheless, there might be a subgroup of patients that benefits from IVT. This needs to be addressed in randomized controlled trials.
| S-EPMC8128793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeMechanical thrombectomy (MT) is an effective treatment for patients with basilar artery occlusion (BAO) acute ischemic stroke. It remains unclear whether bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) prior to MT confers any benefit. This study compared the outcomes of acute BAO patients who were treated with direct MT versus combined IVT plus MT.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients who were treated for acute BAO from eight comprehensive stroke centers between January 2015 and December 2019. Patients received direct MT or combined bridging IVT plus MT. Primary outcome was favorable functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale 0-3 measured at 90 days. Secondary outcome measures included mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH).ResultsAmong 322 patients, 127 (39.4%) patients underwent bridging IVT followed by MT and 195 (60.6%) underwent direct MT. The mean±standard deviation age was 67.5±14.1 years, 64.0% were male and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 16 (interquartile range, 8 to 25). At 90-day, the rate of favorable functional outcome was similar between the bridging IVT and direct MT groups (39.4% vs. 34.4%, P=0.361). On multivariable analyses, bridging IVT was not as Comorbidisociated with favorable functional outcome, mortality or sICH. In subgroup analyses, patients with underlying atherosclerosis treated with bridging IVT compared to direct MT had a higher rate of favorable functional outcome at 90 days (37.2% vs. 15.5%, P=0.013).ConclusionsFunctional outcomes were similar in BAO patients treated with bridging IVT versus direct MT. In the subgroup of patients with underlying large-artery atherosclerosis stroke mechanism, bridging IVT may potentially confer benefit and this warrants further investigation.
| S-EPMC8829485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purpose. Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is the standard of care for eligible patients with a large vessel occlusion (LVO) acute ischemic stroke. Among patients undergoing MT there has been uncertainty regarding the role of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and previous trials have yielded conflicting results regarding clinical outcomes. We aim to investigate clinical, reperfusion outcomes and safety of MT with or without IVT for ischemic stroke due to anterior circulation LVO. Materials and Methods. This observational, prospective, single-centre study included consecutive patients with acute LVO ischemic stroke of the anterior circulation. The primary outcomes were the rate of in-hospital mortality, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage and functional independence (mRS 0-2 at 90 days). Results. We enrolled a total of 577 consecutive patients: 161 (27.9%) were treated with MT alone while 416 (72.1%) underwent IVT and MT. Patients with MT who were treated with IVT had lower rates of in-hospital mortality (p = 0.037), higher TICI reperfusion grades (p = 0.007), similar rates of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (p = 0.317) and a higher percentage of functional independence mRS (0-2) at 90 days (p = 0.022). Bridging IVT with MT compared to MT alone was independently associated with a favorable post-intervention TICI score (>2b) (OR, 1.716; 95% CI, 1.076-2.735, p = 0.023). Conclusions. Our findings suggest that combined treatment with MT and IVT is safe and results in increased reperfusion rates as compared to MT alone.
| S-EPMC9918289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTimely intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy are the standard reperfusion treatments for large vessel occlusion stroke. Currently, it is unknown whether a low-dose thrombolytic agent (0.6 mg/kg alteplase) can offer similar efficacy to the standard dose (0.9 mg/kg alteplase).MethodsWe enrolled consecutive patients in the multicenter Taiwan Registry of Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke who had received combined thrombolysis (within 4.5 hours of onset) and thrombectomy treatment from January 2019 to April 2023. The choice of low- or standard-dose alteplase was based on the physician's discretion. The outcomes included successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score, 2b-3), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, 90-day modified Rankin Scale score, and 90-day mortality. The outcomes between the 2 groups were compared using multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted analysis.ResultsAmong the 2242 patients in the Taiwan Registry of Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke, 734 (33%) received intravenous alteplase. Patients in the low-dose group (n=360) were older, had more women, more atrial fibrillation, and longer onset-to-needle time compared with the standard-dose group (n=374). In comparison to low-dose alteplase, standard-dose alteplase was associated with a lower rate of successful reperfusion (81% versus 87%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.40-0.98]), a numerically higher incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (6.7% versus 3.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.81 [95% CI, 0.88-3.69]), but better 90-day modified Rankin Scale score (functional independence [modified Rankin Scale score, 0-2], 47% versus 31%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.28-2.86]), and a numerically lower mortality rate (9% versus 15%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.43-1.25]) after adjusting for covariates. Similar results were observed in the inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted models. The results were consistent across predefined subgroups and age strata.ConclusionsDespite the lower rate of successful reperfusion and higher risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage with standard-dose alteplase, standard-dose alteplase was associated with a better functional outcome in patients receiving combined thrombolysis and thrombectomy.
| S-EPMC10896194 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndovascular thrombectomy (EVT) has been proven effective in anterior circulation stroke due to large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, translation from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with highly selected patients to real-world requires confirmation, particularly to identify associations outside of strict selection criteria.AimsThis study aims to compare functional outcomes after EVT in real-world with those reported in RCTs, and to identify associations with functional outcome after EVT outside RCT-criteria.MethodsThis study analyzed longitudinal German real-world data from the Stroke Research Consortium in Northern Bavaria (STAMINA) cohort from January, 2015 to June, 2019. We conducted a trial emulation, comparing patients with anterior circulation stroke and LVO meeting selection criteria for RCTs investigating EVT (1) predominantly within 6 hours with those from HERMES meta-analysis, and (2) within 6-24 hours with those from AURORA meta-analysis. We (3) analyzed treatment effects of EVT and association with functional outcome in patients treated outside RCT criteria.ResultsOf 598 patients, 281 (47.0%) met RCT-criteria for treatment within 6 hours (hereinafter STAMINA-HERMES), 74 (12.4%) met RCT-criteria for treatment within 6-24 hours (STAMINA-AURORA), and 277 (46.3%) patients received EVT outside RCT-criteria. We observed no difference in rates of functional independence or mortality, comparing STAMINA-HERMES with HERMES meta-analysis (mRS 0-1: n=120/281 [43%] vs. 291/633 [46%], p=0.36; mortality: n=34/281 [12%] vs. 97/633 [15%], p=0.20), and STAMINA-AURORA with AURORA meta-analysis (mRS 0-1: n=26/74 [35%] vs. 122/266 [46%], p=0.10, mortality: n=10/74 [14%] vs. 45/266 [17%], p=0.48). Patients treated outside RCT-criteria had worse outcome (mRS 0-1: n=38/277 [14%], mortality: n=90/277 [32%], both p<0.001); possibly driven by pre-existing functional dependence (n=172/277 [62%]). Compared to matched controls, EVT outside of RCT-criteria was associated with lower mortality (absolute treatment effect: -14%, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] -23 to -5, p<0.01), but not with recovery to functional independence or premorbid functional status (treatment effect: 4%, CI -4 to 11, p=0.34), which was associated with lower NIHSS (Odds ratio [OR] 0.86, CI 0.80-0.92, p<0.001) and age (OR 0.95, CI 0.93-0.98, p=0.002).ConclusionsTranslation of EVT outcomes reported in RCTs into real-world is possible, however, almost half of patients did not meet trial criteria. Identification of patients who functionally benefit from frequently performed EVT outside RCT-criteria requires further investigation.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04357899.
| S-EPMC11270839 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute limb ischemia (ALI) is an important clinical event threatening both life and the affected limbs, but the optimal treatment for ALI remains undefined. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of thrombectomy approaches via either catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) or catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT).MethodsA total of 98 patients (mean age 69.7 years, 60 male) who underwent endovascular intervention for ALI from January 2015 to July 2019 were included. Of these, 57 were treated with primary CBT via a large-bore catheter, an AngioJet catheter or Rotarex catheter, and/or underwent low-dose CDT, and 41 were treated with primary CDT. The safety and effectiveness of CBT compared to conventional CDT and other various endovascular techniques were evaluated.ResultsMore Rutherford IIb patients were treated with primary CBT (68.4%) than CDT (26.8%; P < .001). Patients who underwent primary CDT achieved a higher technical success rate than those who underwent primary CBT in a shorter procedure time (P < .001), whereas 42.1% of patients who underwent CBT did not need adjunctive CDT. The duration and dosage of adjunctive CDT in the CBT group were significantly decreased compared with those in the primary CDT group (both P < .001), and the CBT group achieved a shorter in-hospital length of stay (P < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients treated with AngioJet and Rotarex catheters achieved slightly lower dosages, shorter CDT durations and shorter in-hospital stay lengths than those treated with large-bore catheters (P > .05). Clinical success was estimated to be achieved in 98.2% of patients who underwent CBT, which is similar to the 97.6% estimated in those who underwent primary CDT (P = 1.000), and this finding was similar among the CBT subgroups. Patients who underwent CBT had a higher procedure-related distal embolization rate and economic cost than those who underwent primary CDT (P < .05), but it had slightly fewer complications than those who underwent primary CDT (P = .059), especially minor complications (P = .036). The freedom from amputation at 6 and 12 months for CBT and CDT was assessed (93.0% vs 90.2% respectively, P = .625; 89.5% vs 82.9%, respectively, P = .34,). Comparable limb salvage was found for different techniques of large bore catheters, AngioJet catheters and Rotarex catheters. The Kaplan-Meier table analysis also showed similar limb salvage rates between groups.ConclusionsEndovascular treatment of ALI with the use of catheter-based therapies is an effective modality that can reduce the requirement for thrombolysis, with expected reductions in hemorrhagic complications, but at the risk of remediable distal emboli and increased economic cost. It has a similar clinical outcome to conventional CDT alone. Different CBT techniques have comparable efficacy but different adverse event profiles.
| S-EPMC8645071 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Whether bridging treatment combining intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is superior to direct EVT alone for emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation is unknown. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to investigate and assess the effect and safety of bridging treatment vs. direct EVT in patients with LVO in the anterior circulation. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched to assess the effect and safety of bridging treatment and direct EVT in LVO. Functional independence, mortality, asymptomatic and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aICH and sICH, respectively), and successful recanalization were evaluated. The risk ratio and the 95% CI were analyzed. Results: Among the eight studies included, there was no significant difference in the long-term functional independence (OR = 1.008, 95% CI = 0.845-1.204, P = 0.926), mortality (OR = 1.060, 95% CI = 0.840-1.336, P = 0.624), recanalization rate (OR = 1.015, 95% CI = 0.793-1.300, P = 0.905), and the incidence of sICH (OR = 1.320, 95% CI = 0.931-1.870, P = 0.119) between bridging therapy and direct EVT. After adjusting for confounding factors, bridging therapy showed a lower recanalization rate (effect size or ES = -0.377, 95% CI = -0.684 to -0.070, P = 0.016), but there was no significant difference in the long-term functional independence (ES = 0.057, 95% CI = -0.177 to 0.291, P = 0.634), mortality (ES = 0.693, 95% CI = -0.133 to 1.519, P = 0.100), and incidence of sICH (ES = -0.051, 95% CI = -0.687 to 0.585, P = 0.875) compared with direct EVT. Meanwhile, in the subgroup analysis of RCT, no significant difference was found in the long-term functional independence (OR = 0.927, 95% CI = 0.727-1.182, P = 0.539), recanalization rate (OR = 1.331, 95% CI = 0.948-1.867, P = 0.099), mortality (OR = 1.072, 95% CI = 0.776-1.481, P = 0.673), and sICH incidence (OR = 1.383, 95% CI = 0.806-2.374, P = 0.977) between patients receiving bridging therapy and those receiving direct DVT. Conclusion: For stroke patients with acute anterior circulation occlusion and who are eligible for intravenous thrombolysis, there is no significant difference in the clinical effect between direct EVT and bridging therapy, which needs to be verified by more randomized controlled trials.
| S-EPMC8120007 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe current guideline recommends using an intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV tPA) prior to mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in eligible acute ischemic stroke (AIS) with emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO). Some recent studies found no significant differences in the long-term functional outcomes between bridging therapy (BT, i.e., IV tPA prior to MT) and direct MT (dMT).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and functional outcomes between BT and dMT in AIS patients with ELVO who were eligible for IV tPA administration. Based on the ELVO location, patients were categorized as the anterior group (occlusion of the anterior circulation), or the combined group (occlusion of the anterior and/or posterior circulation). A subgroup analysis was performed based on the study type, i.e., RCT and non-RCT.ResultsThirteen studies (3985 patients) matched the eligibility criteria. Comparing the BT and dMT groups, no significant differences in terms of mortality and good functional outcome were observed at 90 days. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhagic (sICH) events were more frequent in BT patients in the combined group (OR = 0.73, p = 0.02); this result remained significant only in the non-RCT subgroup (OR = 0.67, p = 0.03). The RCT subgroup had a significantly higher rate of successful revascularization in BT patients (OR = 0.73, p = 0.02).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis uncovered no significant differences in functional outcome and mortality rate at 90 days between dMT and BT in patients with AIS who had ELVO. Although BT performed better in terms of successful recanalization rate, there is a risk of increased sICH rate in this group.
| S-EPMC9863165 | 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: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