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
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
23-33Informations 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.