Bridge mechanical thrombectomy may be a better choice for acute large vessel occlusions

Meta-analysis of direct endovascular thrombectomy vs bridging therapy in the management of acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion

BACKGROUND

Debates persist when using intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large-vessel occlusion (LVO). This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized evidence on outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO), comparing bridging therapy (BT) with MT alone.

METHOD

We conducted searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 2023 to identify pertinent clinical trials and observational studies.

RESULT

76 studies, involving 37,658 patients, revealed no significant difference in 90-day functional independence between DEVT and BT. However, a trend favoring BT for achieving functional independence with a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 0-1 was observed, having Odds ratio (OR) of 0.75 (95% CI 0.66-0.86; p < 0.001). DEVT was associated with higher postprocedural mortality (OR 1.44;95% CI 1.25-1.65; p < 0.001), but a lower risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage compared to BT (OR 0.855; 95% CI 0.621-1.177; p = 0.327). Successful recanalization rates favored BT, emphasizing the importance of individualized treatment decisions (OR 0.759; 95% CI 0.594-0.969; p = 0.027). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify key contributors to heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis underscores the intricate equilibrium between functional efficacy and safety in the evaluation of DEVT and BT for ACS-LVO. Fundamentally, while BT appears more efficacious, concerns about safety arise due to the superior safety profile demonstrated by DEVT. Individualized treatment decisions are imperative, and further trials are warranted to enhance precision in clinical guidance.

Mechanical thrombectomy combined with intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analyses

To assess the clinical value of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) combined with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) by comparing it with the MT alone. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of both observational and randomized controlled studies (RCTs) to investigate various outcomes. Our search for relevant studies was conducted between January 2011 and June 2022 in four major databases: PubMed, Embase, WOS, and Cochrane Library. We collected data on several outcomes, including functional independence (FI; defined as modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2), excellent outcomes (mRS 0-1), successful recanalization (SR), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), any intracerebral hemorrhage (aICH), and mortality at three months or discharge. The primary efficacy outcome and safety outcome were FI and sICH, respectively, whereas excellent outcomes and SR were considered secondary efficacy outcomes. Additionally, mortality and aICH were analyzed as secondary safety outcomes. We employed the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model for RCTs when I² < 50%, otherwise the random-effects model was utilized. For observational studies and subgroup analyses, we used the random-effects model to minimize potential bias. A total of 55 eligible studies (nine RCTs and 46 observational studies) were included. For RCTs, the MT + IVT group was superior in FI (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.11-1.46), excellent outcomes (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.03-1.43), SR (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.05-1.45), mortality (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54-0.97) in crude analyses. In adjusted analyses, the MT + IVT group reduced the risk of mortality (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49-0.88). However, the difference in FI between the MT + IVT group and the MT alone group was not significant (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.99-1.38, Fig. 3a). For observational studies, the results of FI (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.16-1.33), excellent outcomes (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.09-1.54), SR (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.05-1.44), mortality (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.64-0.77) in the MT + IVT group were better. Additionally, the MT + IVT group increased the risk of hemorrhagic transformation (HT) including sICH (OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.11-1.21) and aICH (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.05-1.46) in crude analyses. In adjusted analyses, significant better outcomes were seen in the MT + IVT group on FI (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.21-1.52), excellent outcomes (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.26-1.75), and mortality (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56-0.94). The MT + IVT therapy did improve the prognosis for AIS patients and did not increase the risk of HT compared with MT alone therapy.