Dataset Information

Low-Dose vs. Standard-Dose Intravenous Alteplase in Bridging Therapy Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: Experience From a Stroke Center in Vietnam.

ABSTRACT: Background: To date, the role of bridging intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy (MTE) is controversial but still recommended in eligible patients. Different doses of intravenous alteplase have been used for treating patients with acute ischemic stroke from large-vessel occlusion (LVO-AIS) in Asia, largely due to variations in the risks for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and treatment affordability. Uncertainty exists over the potential benefits of treating low-dose alteplase, as opposed to standard-dose alteplase, prior to MTE among patients with LVO-AIS. Aim: The aim of the study was to compare outcomes of low- vs. standard-dose of bridging intravenous alteplase before MTE among LVO-AIS patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of LVO-AIS patients who were treated with either 0.6 mg/kg or 0.9 mg/kg alteplase prior to MTE at a stroke center in Northern Vietnam. Multivariable logistic regression models, accounting for potential confounding factors including comorbidities and clinical factors (e.g., stroke severity), were used to compare the outcomes between the two groups. Our primary outcome was functional independence at 90 days following stroke (modified Rankin score; mRS ≤ 2). Secondary outcomes included any ICH incidence, early neurological improvement, recanalization rate, and 90-day mortality. Results: We analyzed data of 107 patients receiving bridging therapy, including 73 with low-dose and 34 with standard-dose alteplase before MTE. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in functional independence at 90 days (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.29-3.52) after accounting for potential confounding factors. Compared to the standard-dose group, patients with low-dose alteplase before MTE had similar rates of successful recanalization, early neurological improvement, 90-day mortality, and ICH complications. Conclusion: In the present study, patients with low-dose alteplase before MTE were found to achieve comparable clinical outcomes compared to those receiving standard-dose alteplase bridging with MTE. The findings suggest potential benefits of low-dose alteplase in bridging therapy for Asian populations, but this needs to be confirmed by further clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Mai DT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8062961 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine any differential efficacy and safety of low- vs standard-dose IV alteplase for lacunar vs nonlacunar acute ischemic stroke (AIS), we performed post hoc analyzes from the Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study (ENCHANTED) alteplase dose arm.MethodsIn a cohort of 3,297 ENCHANTED participants, we identified those with lacunar or nonlacunar AIS with different levels of confidence (definite/according to prespecified definitions based on clinical and adjudicated imaging findings. Logistic regression models were used to determine associations of lacunar AIS with 90-day outcomes (primary, modified Rankin Scale [mRS] scores 2-6; secondary, other mRS scores, intracerebral hemorrhage [ICH], and early neurologic deterioration or death) and treatment effects of low- vs standard-dose alteplase across lacunar and nonlacunar AIS with adjustment for baseline covariables.ResultsOf 2,588 participants with available imaging and clinical data, we classified cases as definite/probable lacunar (n = 490) or nonlacunar AIS (n = 2,098) for primary analyses. Regardless of alteplase dose received, lacunar AIS participants had favorable functional (mRS 2-6, adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.60 [0.47-0.77]) and other clinical or safety outcomes compared to participants with nonlacunar AIS. Low-dose alteplase (versus standard) had no differential effect on functional outcomes (mRS 2-6, 1.04 [0.87-1.24]) but reduced the risk of symptomatic ICH in all included participants. There were no differential treatment effects of low- vs standard-dose alteplase on all outcomes across lacunar and nonlacunar AIS (all p interaction ≥0.07).ConclusionsWe found no evidence from the ENCHANTED trial that low-dose alteplase had any advantages over standard dose for definite/probable lacunar AIS.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that for patients with lacunar AIS, low-dose alteplase had no additional benefit or safety over standard-dose alteplase.Clinical trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01422616.

Project description:ImportanceA lower dose of intravenous alteplase appears to be a safer treatment option than the standard dose, reducing the risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. There is uncertainty, however, over how this effect translates into an overall clinical benefit for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS).ObjectiveTo assess whether older, Asian, or severely affected patients with AIS who are considered at high risk of thrombolysis may benefit more from low-dose rather than standard-dose alteplase treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis study is a prespecified secondary analysis of the Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study (ENCHANTED), an international, randomized, open-label, blinded, end-point clinical trial of low-dose vs standard-dose intravenous alteplase for patients with AIS. From March 1, 2012, to August 31, 2015, a total of 3310 patients who had a clinical diagnosis of AIS as confirmed by brain imaging and who fulfilled the local criteria for thrombolysis treatment were included in the alteplase-dose arms. Patients were randomly assigned to receive low-dose (0.6 mg/kg; 15% as bolus and 85% as infusion over 1 hour) or standard-dose (0.9 mg/kg; 10% as bolus and 90% as infusion over 1 hour) alteplase. Of the 3310 randomized patients, 13 patients were excluded for missing consent, mistaken randomization, and duplicate randomization numbers. This secondary analysis was conducted between May 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was a poor outcome defined by the combination of death and any disability as scored by the modified Rankin Scale (scores range from 2 to 6, with the highest score indicating death) at 90 days.ResultsOf the 3297 patients included in the analysis, 1248 (37.9%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 67 (13) years. No significant differences in the treatment effects were observed between low- and standard-dose alteplase for poor outcomes (death or disability) by age, ethnicity, or severity (all P > .37 for interaction). Similarly, the treatment effects of low- vs standard-dose alteplase on function outcome (ordinal shift of the modified Rankin Scale) in Asians (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.22) was consistent with non-Asians (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.14) (P = .32 for interaction). There were generally consistent reductions in rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage with low-dose alteplase, although this reduction was not statistically significant by age, ethnicity, or severity.Conclusions and relevanceThis analysis found that the effects of low-dose alteplase were not clearly superior to the effects of standard-dose alteplase on death or disability in key demographic subgroups of patients with AIS. Further investigation is required to identify patients with AIS who may benefit from low-dose alteplase.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01422616.

Project description:Background and purposeWith increasing use of endovascular therapy, physicians' attitudes toward intravenous alteplase in endovascular therapy-eligible patients may be changing. We explored current intravenous alteplase treatment practices of physicians in endovascular therapy- and alteplase-eligible patients with acute stroke using prespecified case scenarios and compared how their current local treatment practices differ compared with an assumed ideal environment.Materials and methodsIn an international multidisciplinary survey, 607 physicians involved in acute stroke care were randomly assigned 10 of 22 case scenarios, among them 14 with guideline-based alteplase recommendations (9 with level 1A and 5 with level 2B recommendation) and were asked how they would treat the patient: A) under their current local resources, and B) under assumed ideal conditions. Answer options were the following: 1) anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy, 2) endovascular therapy, 3) endovascular therapy plus intravenous alteplase, and 4) intravenous alteplase. Decision rates were calculated, and multivariable regression analysis was performed to determine variables associated with the decision to abandon intravenous alteplase.ResultsIn cases with guideline recommendations for alteplase, physicians favored alteplase in 82.0% under current local resources and in 79.3% under assumed ideal conditions (P < .001). Under assumed ideal conditions, interventional neuroradiologists would refrain from intravenous alteplase most often (6.28%, OR = 2.40; 95% CI, 1.01-5.71). When physicians' current and ideal decisions differed, most would like to add endovascular therapy to intravenous alteplase in an ideal setting (196/3861 responses, 5.1%).ConclusionsIn patients eligible for endovascular therapy and intravenous alteplase, we observed a slightly lower decision rate in favor of intravenous alteplase under assumed ideal conditions compared with the decision rate under current local resources.

Project description:ImportanceFor patients with large vessel occlusion strokes, it is unknown whether endovascular treatment alone compared with intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment (standard treatment) can achieve similar functional outcomes.ObjectiveTo investigate whether endovascular thrombectomy alone is noninferior to intravenous alteplase followed by endovascular thrombectomy for achieving functional independence at 90 days among patients with large vessel occlusion stroke.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted at 33 stroke centers in China. Patients (n = 234) were 18 years or older with proximal anterior circulation intracranial occlusion strokes within 4.5 hours from symptoms onset and eligible for intravenous thrombolysis. Enrollment took place from May 20, 2018, to May 2, 2020. Patients were enrolled and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up was July 22, 2020).InterventionsA total of 116 patients were randomized to the endovascular thrombectomy alone group and 118 patients to combined intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy group.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving functional independence at 90 days (defined as score 0-2 on the modified Rankin Scale; range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]). The noninferiority margin was -10%. Safety outcomes included the incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage within 48 hours and 90-day mortality.ResultsThe trial was stopped early because of efficacy when 234 of a planned 970 patients had undergone randomization. All 234 patients who were randomized (mean age, 68 years; 102 women [43.6%]) completed the trial. At the 90-day follow-up, 63 patients (54.3%) in the endovascular thrombectomy alone group vs 55 (46.6%) in the combined treatment group achieved functional independence at the 90-day follow-up (difference, 7.7%, 1-sided 97.5% CI, -5.1% to ∞)P for noninferiority = .003). No significant between-group differences were detected in symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (6.1% vs 6.8%; difference, -0.8%; 95% CI, -7.1% to 5.6%) and 90-day mortality (17.2% vs 17.8%; difference, -0.5%; 95% CI, -10.3% to 9.2%).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with ischemic stroke due to proximal anterior circulation occlusion within 4.5 hours from onset, endovascular treatment alone, compared with intravenous alteplase plus endovascular treatment, met the prespecified statistical threshold for noninferiority for the outcome of 90-day functional independence. These findings should be interpreted in the context of the clinical acceptability of the selected noninferiority threshold.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-IOR-17013568.

Dataset Information

Low-Dose vs. Standard-Dose Intravenous Alteplase in Bridging Therapy Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: Experience From a Stroke Center in Vietnam.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets