Intravenous thrombolysis plus mechanical thrombectomy versus mechanical thrombectomy alone for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis of clinical trials
Mohamed Elfil, Hazem S. Ghaith, Hanaa Elsayed, Mohammad Aladawi, Ahmed Elmashad, Neisha Patel, Chaitanya Medicherla, Mohammad El‐Ghanem, Krishna Amuluru, Fawaz Al‐Mufti
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is the gold standard treatment for large vessel occlusion (LVO). A vital factor that might influence MT outcomes is the use of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). A few clinical trials in this domain thus far have not yielded consistent outcomes. We conducted this meta-analysis to synthesize collective evidence in this regard. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement guidelines were followed, and we performed a comprehensive literature search of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL). For outcomes constituting continuous data, the mean difference (MD) and its standard deviation (SD) were pooled. For outcomes constituting dichotomous data, the frequency of events and the total number of patients were pooled as the risk ratio (RR). RESULTS: Seven clinical trials with a total of 2317 patients are included in this meta-analysis. Six trials are randomized, and one trial was nonrandomized. No significant differences were found between MT plus IVT and MT alone in successful recanalization (RR 1.04, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.92 to 1.17], P = 0.53), 90-day functional independence (RR 1.03, 95% CI [0.90 to 1.19], P = 0.65), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) (RR 1.22, 95% CI [0.84 to 1.75], P = 0.30), or mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI [0.76 to 1.18], P = 0.61). CONCLUSION: The current evidence does not favor either MT plus IVT or MT alone for LVO except for the procedural time. More trials are needed in this regard, and certain factors should be considered when comparing the two approaches.