• Raoqiong Wang, Shuangyang Li, Linyao Hao, Zhichuan Wang, Zhengxin Ge, and Sijin Yang.
• National Traditional Chinese Medicine Clinical Research Base of the Affiliated Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Sep 30; 101 (39): e30879e30879.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to perform a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) versus bridging therapy of intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy (IVMT), comparing the efficacy and safety of the two in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS).MethodsAll eligible RCT articles from database establishment to December 8, 2021 were searched in databases such as PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library, etc. Efficacy outcomes were assessed by modified RANKIN scal (mRS) score, complete recanalization or reperfusion (TICI), National Institute of Health Stroke Scal (NIHSS) score, 90-day mortality, 24 to 36 h incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH).ResultsOur study included 6 RCT involving 1717 patients. The proportion of the primary efficacy outcome (mRS score 0-2 at 90 days) was significantly different between IVT and IVMT (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.35-0.76). For the secondary efficacy outcome, the study found a significant difference in the proportion of TICI (pooled OR was 0.055, 95% CI 0.07-0.33). There was a significant difference in the 24 h NIHSS score between the IVT group and the IVMT group (pooled MD was 3.25, 95% CI 0.80-5.70). There were no significant differences in the NIHSS score at 90 days, the death rate at 90 days, and the sICH at 24 to 36 hours between the two groups.ConclusionsThis study confirms that IVMT is more effective and safe than IVT alone in patients with AIS. However, more and higher-quality randomized clinical trials comparing IVMT to IV alone are warranted for validation.Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

27 keywords...

hide…