Impact of bridging thrombolysis on clinical outcome in stroke patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy: a retrospective analysis of a regional stroke registry.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
It 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.Methods
In 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.Results
In 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).Conclusions
The 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.
SUBMITTER: Seker F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8128793 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background It was uncertain if direct endovascular thrombectomy (ET) was superior to bridging thrombolysis (BT) for patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by large-vessel occlusions. We aimed to examine real-world clinical outcomes of ET using nationwide registry data in China and to compare the efficacy and safety between BT and direct ET. Methods and Results Patients treated with ET from a nationwide registry study in China were included. Rapid neurological improvement, intracranial hemorrhage, and in-hospital mortality were compared between the 2 groups using multivariate logistic models and propensity-score matching analyses. A total of 7674 patients from 592 stroke centers were included. The median onset-to-puncture time, onset-to-door time, and door to puncture time were 290, 170, and 99 minutes, respectively. A total of 2069 (27.0%) patients received BT treatment. Patients in the BT group had a significantly shorter onset-to-puncture time (235 versus 323 minutes; P<0.001) and onset-to-door time (90 versus 222 minutes; P<0.001) compared with the direct ET group. The prior use of intravenous thrombolysis was associated with a higher rate of rapid neurological improvement (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96) and higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.18-1.80) in multivariate analyses and propensity-score matching analyses. Conclusions This study reflects the current application of ET in China. More patients received direct ET than BT. Our results suggested that favorable short-term outcomes could be achieved with BT compared with direct ET. Higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage was observed in the BT group.
| S-EPMC7955444 | 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: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:Background: Endovascular treatment (EVT) for large vessel occlusion stroke (LVOS) is highly effective. To date, it remains controversial if intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) prior to EVT is superior compared with EVT alone. The aim of our study was to specifically address the question, whether bridging IVT directly prior to EVT has additional positive effects on reperfusion times, successful reperfusion, and functional outcomes compared with EVT alone. Methods: Patients with LVOS in the anterior circulation eligible for EVT with and without prior IVT and direct admission to endovascular centers (mothership) were included in this multicentric, retrospective study. Patient data was derived from the German Stroke Registry (an open, multicenter, and prospective observational study). Outcome parameters included groin-to-reperfusion time, successful reperfusion [defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale 2b-3], change in National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and mortality at 90 days. Results: Of the 881 included mothership patients with anterior circulation LVOS, 486 (55.2%) received bridging therapy with i.v.-rtPA prior to EVT, and 395 (44.8%) received EVT alone. Adjusted, multivariate linear mixed effect models revealed no difference in groin-to-reperfusion time between the groups (48 ± 36 vs. 49 ± 34 min; p = 0.299). Rates of successful reperfusion (TICI ≥ 2b) were higher in patients with bridging IVT (fixed effects estimate 0.410, 95% CI, 0.070; 0.750, p = 0.018). There was a trend toward a higher improvement in the NIHSS during hospitalization [ΔNIHSS: bridging-IVT group 8 (IQR, 9.8) vs. 4 (IQR 11) points in the EVT alone group; fixed effects estimate 1.370, 95% CI, -0.490; 3.240, p = 0.149]. mRS at 90 days follow-up was lower in the bridging IVT group [3 (IQR, 4) vs. 4 (IQR, 4); fixed effects estimate -0.350, 95% CI, -0.680; -0.010, p = 0.041]. There was a non-significantly lower 90 day mortality in the bridging IVT group compared with the EVT alone group (22.4% vs. 33.6%; fixed effects estimate 0.980, 95% CI -0.610; 2.580, p = 0.351). Rates of any intracerebral hemorrhage did not differ between both groups (4.1% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.864). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that bridging IVT might improve rates of successful reperfusion and long-term functional outcome in mothership patients with anterior circulation LVOS eligible for EVT.
| S-EPMC8222775 | 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:BackgroundBenefits of endovascular thrombectomy (ET) after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) have been demonstrated, but analyses of the relationship between IVT-ET time delay and functional outcomes among patients receiving both treatments are lacking.MethodsWe used data from the "Berlin-Specific Acute Treatment in Ischaemic and haemorrhAgic stroke with Long-term outcome" (B-SPATIAL) registry. Between January 1st, 2016 and December 31st, 2019, we included patients who received both IVT and ET. The primary outcome was the 3-month ordinal modified Rankin scale (mRS) score. The IVT-ET time delay was analyzed in categories and continuously. We used adjusted ordinal logistic regression to estimate common odds ratios (cOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Secondary analyses involved flexible modeling of IVT-ET delay and dichotomous outcomes.ResultsOf 11,049 patients, 714 who received IVT followed by ET were included. Compared with having an IVT-ET window >120 min (reference), for an IVT-ET window < 30 min, we obtained adjusted cORs for mRS of 0.41 (95% CI: 0.22 to 0.78); and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.33 to 0.82) for 30 to 120 min. Secondary analyses also found protective effects of shorter time delays against "poor" functional outcomes at 3 months.ConclusionsIn patients with AIS, shorter IVT-ET intervals were associated with better 3-month functional outcomes. While the time-to-IVT and time-to-ET include the time until medical attention is received, the IVT-ET time delays fall entirely within the domain of medical management and thus might be easier to optimize.
| S-EPMC9667508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purpose:In acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) of the anterior circulation (AC) treated with mechanical thrombectomy (MT), data point to a decline of treatment effect with increasing time from symptom onset to treatment. However, the magnitude of the decline will depend on the clinical setting and imaging selection used. The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate the clinical effect of time to reperfusion (TTR); and (2) to assess the safety and technical efficacy of MT according to strata of TTR. Methods:Using the retrospective multicentre BEYOND-SWIFT registry data (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03496064), we compared safety and efficacy of MT in 1461 patients between TTR strata of 0-180?min (n = 192), 180-360?min (n = 876) and >360?min (n = 393). Clinical effect of TTR was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusting for pre-specified confounders [adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)]. Primary outcome was good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale: mRS 0-2) at day 90. Results:Every hour delay in TTR was a significant factor related to mRS 0-2 (aOR 0.933, 95% CI 0.887-0.981) with an estimated 1.5% decreased probability of good functional outcome per hour delay of reperfusion, and mRS 0-1 (aOR 0.929, 95% CI 0.877-0.985). Patients with late TTR had lower rates of successful and excellent reperfusion, higher complication rates and number of passes. Conclusions:TTR is an independent factor related to long-term functional outcome. With increasing TTR, interventional procedures become technically less effective. Efforts should be made to shorten TTR through optimized prehospital and in-hospital pathways.
| S-EPMC6437320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCurrent published guidelines and meta-analyses comparing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) alone versus EVT with bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) suggest that EVT alone is non-inferior to EVT with bridging thrombolysis in achieving favourable functional outcome. Because of this controversy, we aimed to systematically update the evidence and meta-analyse data from randomised trials comparing EVT alone versus EVT with bridging thrombolysis, and performed an economic evaluation comparing both strategies.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing EVT with or without bridging thrombolysis in patients presenting with large vessel occlusions. We will identify eligible studies by systematically searching the following databases from inception without any language restrictions: MEDLINE (through Ovid), Embase and the Cochrane Library. The following criteria will be used to assess eligibility for inclusion: (1) adult patients ≥18 years old; (2) randomised patients to EVT alone or to EVT with IVT; and (3) measured outcomes, including functional outcomes, at least 90 days after randomisation. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the identified articles, extract information and assess the risk of bias of eligible studies. We will use the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool to evaluate risk of bias. We will also use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome. We will then perform an economic evaluation based on the extracted data.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will not require a research ethics approval because no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings by publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal and via presentation at conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42022315608.
| S-EPMC10277059 | 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