Comparison of functional and safety outcomes between the extended versus early time window after intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy

Abstract

IntroductionBased on recent trials regarding the early time window, omitting intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in eligible patients seems unjustified. Whether this also concerns the extended time window, 4.5 to 9 h from last seen well, is yet unclear. Patients and methodsAll consecutive patients treated with IVT, EVT, or IVT plus EVT in the extended time window at Helsinki University Hospital (HUS) between 1/2021 and 12/2022 were compared with matched controls treated in the early time window between 1/2016 and 12/2020. Regression analysis was applied on functional outcome at 90 days, evaluated on modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and on the occurrence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), adjusted for potential confounders. ResultsAltogether 134 patients and 134 matching controls were included. Functional outcomes did not significantly differ between the extended versus early time window. Among patients with IVT plus EVT, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a favorable outcome shift on mRS was 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–2.43. Although sICH occurred more frequently (2.2% versus 3.0%) in the extended time window, regression analysis did not show a significant difference, aOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.14–6.87. Discussion and conclusionWe found no significant differences in the functional or safety outcomes between the extended versus early time window among patients with either IVT, EVT, or IVT plus EVT. There were no signals indicating, that IVT or EVT should be avoided in eligible patients in the extended time window which aligns with the current clinical treatment guidelines of HUS.