Endovascular thrombectomy or bridging therapy in minor ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion

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.

IV thrombolysis plus thrombectomy versus IV thrombolysis alone for minor stroke with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion from the IRETAS and Italian SITS-ISTR cohorts

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) <4.5 h after symptom onset plus mechanical thrombectomy (MT) <6 h with those treated with IVT alone <4.5 h for minor stroke (NIHSS ≤5) with large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients enrolled in the Italian Registry of Endovascular Treatment in Acute Stroke (IRETAS) and in the Italian centers included in the SITS-ISTR were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the patients with complete data on 24-h ICH type, 236 received IVT plus MT and 382 received IVT alone. IVT plus MT was significantly associated with unfavorable shift on 24-h ICH types (from no ICH to PH-2) (OR, 2.130; 95% CI, 1.173-3.868; p=0.013) and higher rate of PH (OR, 4.363; 95% CI, 1.579-12.055; p=0.005), sICH per ECASS II definition (OR, 5.527; 95% CI, 1.378-22.167; p=0.016), and sICH per NINDS definition (OR, 3.805; 95% CI, 1.310-11.046; p=0.014). Among the patients with complete data on 3-month mRS score, 226 received IVT plus MT and 262 received IVT alone. No significant difference was reported between IVT plus MT and IVT alone on mRS score 0-1 (72.1% versus 69.1%), mRS score 0-2 (79.6% versus 79%), and death (6.2% versus 6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with IVT alone, IVT plus MT was associated with unfavorable shift on 24-h ICH types and higher rate of 24-h PH and sICH in patients with minor stroke and LVO in the anterior circulation. However, no difference was reported between the groups on 3-month functional outcome measures.

Intravenous Thrombolysis or Medical Management for Minor Strokes

OBJECTIVE

 To evaluate the outcomes of acute ischemic stroke patients with minor deficits treated with either intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) or routine medical management (MM).

METHODS

 The study included patients with acute ischemic stroke and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores of 5 or less who were treated with IVT within 4.5 hours from symptom onset and were classified as the IVT group. The MM group consisted of an equal number of patients with minor strokes, matched for sex, age, and severity, who did not receive thrombolysis. Data on patient information were collected for both groups.

RESULTS

 A total of 26,236 patients were included in this study (13,208 in IVT and 13,208 in MM). Of these patients, 67.9% were men, and the mean age was 67.1 years (standard deviation: 10.9). At 3 months, the IVT group had a higher rate of stroke-independent outcome (Rankin Scale score of 0-2) compared with the MM group (IVT vs. MM: 91.6 vs. 88.6%, absolute difference: 2.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-3.4%, p = 0.008; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1-1.4, p = 0.003). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in 3-month mortality rates between the IVT and MM groups (IVT vs. MM: 2.1 vs. 2.5%, absolute difference: -0.6%, 95% CI: -1.1 to 0.3%, p = 0.11; adjusted HR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.8-1.2, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

 Compared with MM, IVT does not reduce mortality in minor ischemic stroke but improves functional outcomes in minor stroke with an NIHSS score of 3 to 5.