• Xiaohua Pan, Guorong Liu, Bo Wu, Xiuzhen Liu, and Yong Fang.
• Department of Neurology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Apr 1; 98 (14): e14956.

BackgroundWhether bridging strategies[intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) + mechanical thrombectomy (MT)] are superior to mechanical thrombectomy alone for large vessel occlusion(LVO) is still uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate and evaluate comparative efficacy and safety of bridging strategies vs direct MT in patients with LVO.MethodsThe PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were searched to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bridging strategies with direct MT in LVO. Functional independence, mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and successful recanalization were assessed. The risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.ResultsThe proportion of patients who received MT + IVT was significantly higher in functional independence and successful recanalization rate than MT alone patients. However, pooled results showed that the mortality of patients who received MT + IVT was significantly lower than that of MT alone patients. Moreover, no significant differences were observed in the incidence of sICH between the 2 groups.ConclusionThe findings of our meta-analysis confirmed that bridging strategies improved functional outcomes, successful recanalization rate and reduced mortality rates. Moreover, the incidence of sICH showed no differences between the bridging strategies and MT alone treatments. However, the conduct of high-quality randomized clinical trials that directly compare both strategies is warranted.

33 keywords...

hide…