Abstract

The role of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) as bridging treatment prior to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is under debate and better patient selection is needed. As the efficacy and safety of IVT diminish with time, we aimed to examine the impact of bridging treatment within different time frames from symptom onset. A retrospective registry study. Data were extracted from ongoing prospective EVT registries in two large tertiary centers. The current study included IVT-eligible patients with onset to door (OTD) < 4 h. We examined the efficacy and safety of bridging treatment through a comparison of the IVT + EVT group with the direct-EVT group by different time frames. In all, 408 patients (age 71.1 ± 14.6, 50.6% males) were included, among them 195 received IVT + EVT and 213 underwent direct EVT. Both groups had similar characteristics. In the IVT + EVT group only, longer OTD was associated with lower rates of favorable outcome (p = 0.021) and higher rates of hemorrhagic transformation (HT; p = 0.001). In patients with OTD ⩽ 2 h, IVT + EVT compared to direct EVT had higher rates of TICI 2b-3 (86.2% versus 80.7%, p = 0.038). In patients with OTD > 2 h, IVT + EVT had lower rates of favorable outcome (33.3% versus 56.9%, p = 0.021), worse discharge National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [7 (2-13) versus 3 (1-8), p = 0.024], and higher rates of HT (34.0% versus 8.5%, p < 0.001). In this study, we found OTD times to have a significant effect on the impact of IVT bridging treatment. Our study shows that among patients with OTD < 2 h bridging treatment may be associated with higher rates of successful recanalization. By contrast, in patients with OTD > 2 h, bridging treatment was associated with worse outcomes. Further time-sensitive randomized trials are needed.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call