Endovascular Thrombectomy With or Without Thrombolysis for Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

GRADE stroke systematic review thrombectomy thrombolysis

Journal

The Neurohospitalist
ISSN: 1941-8744
Titre abrégé: Neurohospitalist
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101558199

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2024
Historique:
pmc-release: 01 01 2025
medline: 18 1 2024
pubmed: 18 1 2024
entrez: 18 1 2024
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To this date, whether to administer intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) prior to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for stroke patients still stirs some debate. We aimed to systematically update the evidence from randomized trials comparing EVT alone vs EVT with bridging IVT. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVT with or without IVT in patients presenting with stroke secondary to a large vessel occlusion. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models to compare functional independence, mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), between EVT and EVT with IVT. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Of 11,111 citations, we included 6 studies with a total of 2336 participants. We found low-certainty evidence of possibly a small decrease in the proportion of patients with functional independence (risk difference [RD] -2.0%, 95% CI -5.9% to 2.0%), low-certainty evidence that there is possibly a small increase in mortality (RD 1.0%, 95% CI -2.2% to 4.7%), and moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably a decrease in sICH (RD -1.0%, 95% CI -1.6% to .7%) for patients with EVT alone compared to EVT plus IVT, respectively. Low-certainty evidence shows that there is possibly a small decrease in functional independence, low-certainty evidence shows that there is possibly a small increase in mortality, and moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably a decrease in sICH for patients with EVT alone compared to EVT plus IVT.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
To this date, whether to administer intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) prior to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for stroke patients still stirs some debate. We aimed to systematically update the evidence from randomized trials comparing EVT alone vs EVT with bridging IVT.
Methods UNASSIGNED
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVT with or without IVT in patients presenting with stroke secondary to a large vessel occlusion. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models to compare functional independence, mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), between EVT and EVT with IVT. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
Results UNASSIGNED
Of 11,111 citations, we included 6 studies with a total of 2336 participants. We found low-certainty evidence of possibly a small decrease in the proportion of patients with functional independence (risk difference [RD] -2.0%, 95% CI -5.9% to 2.0%), low-certainty evidence that there is possibly a small increase in mortality (RD 1.0%, 95% CI -2.2% to 4.7%), and moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably a decrease in sICH (RD -1.0%, 95% CI -1.6% to .7%) for patients with EVT alone compared to EVT plus IVT, respectively.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Low-certainty evidence shows that there is possibly a small decrease in functional independence, low-certainty evidence shows that there is possibly a small increase in mortality, and moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably a decrease in sICH for patients with EVT alone compared to EVT plus IVT.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38235037
doi: 10.1177/19418744231200046
pii: 10.1177_19418744231200046
pmc: PMC10790620
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

23-33

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2023.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Auteurs

Rami Z Morsi (RZ)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Yuan Zhang (Y)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Julián Carrión-Penagos (J)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Harsh Desai (H)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Elie Tannous (E)

Department of Pathology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY, USA.

Sachin Kothari (S)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Assem Khamis (A)

Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.

Andrea J Darzi (AJ)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Ammar Tarabichi (A)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Reena Bastin (R)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Layal Hneiny (L)

Wegner Health Sciences Information Center, University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD, USA.

Sonam Thind (S)

Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Elisheva Coleman (E)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

James R Brorson (JR)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Scott Mendelson (S)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Ali Mansour (A)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Shyam Prabhakaran (S)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Tareq Kass-Hout (T)

Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.

Classifications MeSH