Intravenous alteplase has different effects on the efficacy of aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy: analysis of the COMPASS trial

Is endovascular treatment alone as effective and safe as that with preceding intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct endovascular therapy (EVT) and bridging therapy (EVT with preceding intravenous thrombolysis i.e. IVT), in acute anterior circulation, large vessel occlusion stroke.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review of the English language literature was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS and ClinicalTrials.gov. Outcomes of interest were measured by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and included: no disability (mRS0), no significant disability despite some symptoms (mRS1), slight disability (mRS2), moderate disability (mRS3), moderately severe disability (mRS4), severe disability (mRS5), mortality (mRS6). Additionally, we inspected patients having excellent outcome, functional independence outcome, and poor outcome, along with successful reperfusion and intracranial hemorrhage. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of seven RCTs involving 2,392 patients were finally included. The chances of achieving successful reperfusion were significantly more with IVT+EVT as compared to EVT alone (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.00; P=0.03) (I2=0%). There was no significant difference in the number of patients having outcomes ranging from mRS0 to mRS6, excellent outcome, functional independence, poor outcome or incidence of intracranial hemorrhage, who underwent either EVT alone or IVT+EVT.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional trials are needed to determine if the absence of significant differences is due to insufficient sample size or if the combination therapy is truly not beneficial.

Effect of Bridging Thrombolysis on the Efficacy of Stent Retriever Thrombectomy Techniques : Insights from the SWIFT-DIRECT trial

BACKGROUND

There are little available data regarding the influence of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) on the efficacy of different first line endovascular treatment (EVT) techniques.

METHODS

We used the dataset of the SWIFT-DIRECT trial which randomized 408 patients to IVT + EVT or EVT alone at 48 international sites. The protocol required the use of a stent retriever (SR), but concomitant use of a balloon guide catheter (BGC) and/or distal aspiration (DA) catheter was left to the discretion of the operators. Four first line techniques were applied in the study population: SR, SR + BGC, SR + DA, SR + DA + BGC. To assess whether the effect of allocation to IVT + EVT versus EVT alone was modified by the first line technique, interaction models were fitted for predefined outcomes. The primary outcome was first pass mTICI 2c‑3 reperfusion (FPR).

RESULTS

This study included 385 patients of whom 172 were treated with SR + DA, 121 with SR + DA + BGC, 57 with SR + BGC and 35 with SR. There was no evidence that the effect of IVT + EVT versus EVT alone would be modified by the choice of first line technique; however, allocation to IVT + EVT increased the odds of FPR by a factor of 1.68 (95% confidence interval, CI 1.11-2.54).

CONCLUSION

This post hoc analysis does not suggest treatment effect heterogeneity of IVT + EVT vs EVT alone in different stent retriever techniques but provides evidence for increased FPR if bridging IVT is administered before stent retriever thrombectomy.

Effects of intravenous thrombolysis on stent retriever and aspiration thrombectomy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Risks and benefits of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT) have been a topic of interest. However, IVT's specific effects on stent retriever (SR) and aspiration thrombectomy (ASP) outcomes remain largely unexplored. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the effects of IVT on SR and ASP thrombectomy outcomes.

METHODS

In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review was conducted using Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Center of Clinical Trials databases. Outcomes of interest included successful recanalization (modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) ≥2b), modified first pass efficacy (mFPE), functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≤2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and embolization to new territories (ENT).

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials with 1176 patients were included. SR and ASP resulted in similar mTICI ≥2b, mFPE, and mRS 0-2 rates in patients with and without IVT administration. SR without IVT was associated with a significantly lower rate of mFPE compared with the SR+IVT (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.97). Furthermore, ASP without IVT resulted in a lower rate of mRS 0-2 than the ASP+IVT with a strong trend towards significance (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.01). Finally, bridging therapy did not increase sICH and ENT rates after ASP or SR thrombectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that SR and ASP thrombectomy have comparable safety and efficacy profiles, regardless of prior IVT administration. Additionally, our results indicate that the addition of IVT may improve certain efficacy outcomes based on the employed first-line MT technique.

Intravenous thrombolysis plus mechanical thrombectomy versus mechanical thrombectomy alone for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is the gold standard treatment for large vessel occlusion (LVO). A vital factor that might influence MT outcomes is the use of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). A few clinical trials in this domain thus far have not yielded consistent outcomes. We conducted this meta-analysis to synthesize collective evidence in this regard.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement guidelines were followed, and we performed a comprehensive literature search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL). For outcomes constituting continuous data, the mean difference (MD) and its standard deviation (SD) were pooled. For outcomes constituting dichotomous data, the frequency of events and the total number of patients were pooled as the risk ratio (RR).

RESULTS

Seven clinical trials with a total of 2317 patients are included in this meta-analysis. Six trials are randomized, and one trial was nonrandomized. No significant differences were found between MT plus IVT and MT alone in successful recanalization (RR 1.04, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.92 to 1.17], P = 0.53), 90-day functional independence (RR 1.03, 95% CI [0.90 to 1.19], P = 0.65), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) (RR 1.22, 95% CI [0.84 to 1.75], P = 0.30), or mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI [0.76 to 1.18], P = 0.61).

CONCLUSION

The current evidence does not favor either MT plus IVT or MT alone for LVO except for the procedural time. More trials are needed in this regard, and certain factors should be considered when comparing the two approaches.

Thrombectomy alone versus intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy in patients with stroke: an open-label, blinded-outcome, randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Whether thrombectomy alone is equally as effective as intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy remains controversial. We aimed to determine whether thrombectomy alone would be non-inferior to intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy in patients presenting with acute ischaemic stroke.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, blinded-outcome trial in Europe and Canada, we recruited patients with stroke due to large vessel occlusion confirmed with CT or magnetic resonance angiography admitted to endovascular centres. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised web server using a deterministic minimisation method to receive stent-retriever thrombectomy alone or intravenous alteplase plus stent-retriever thrombectomy. In both groups, thrombectomy was initiated as fast as possible with any commercially available Solitaire stent-retriever revascularisation device (Medtronic, Irvine, CA, USA). In the combined treatment group, intravenous alteplase (0·9 mg/kg bodyweight, maximum dose 90 mg per patient) was administered as early as possible after randomisation for 60 min with 10% of the calculated dose given as an initial bolus. Personnel assessing the primary outcome were masked to group allocation; patients and treating physicians were not. The primary binary outcome was a score of 2 or less on the modified Rankin scale at 90 days. We assessed the non-inferiority of thrombectomy alone versus intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy in all randomly assigned and consenting patients using the one-sided lower 95% confidence limit of the Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 12%. The main safety endpoint was symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage assessed in all randomly assigned and consenting participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03192332, and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 29, 2017, and May 7, 2021, 5215 patients were screened and 423 were randomly assigned, of whom 408 (201 thrombectomy alone, 207 intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy) were included in the primary efficacy analysis. A modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days was reached by 114 (57%) of 201 patients assigned to thrombectomy alone and 135 (65%) of 207 patients assigned to intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy (adjusted risk difference -7·3%, 95% CI -16·6 to 2·1, lower limit of one-sided 95% CI -15·1%, crossing the non-inferiority margin of -12%). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in five (2%) of 201 patients undergoing thrombectomy alone and seven (3%) of 202 patients receiving intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy (risk difference -1·0%, 95% CI -4·8 to 2·7). Successful reperfusion was less common in patients assigned to thrombectomy alone (182 [91%] of 201 vs 199 [96%] of 207, risk difference -5·1%, 95% CI -10·2 to 0·0, p=0·047).

INTERPRETATION

Thrombectomy alone was not shown to be non-inferior to intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy and resulted in decreased reperfusion rates. These results do not support omitting intravenous alteplase before thrombectomy in eligible patients.

FUNDING

Medtronic and University Hospital Bern.