Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Direct to embolectomy without IV tPA: the stage is set for a randomized controlled trial
  1. Ronil V Chandra1,
  2. Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi2,
  3. Brijesh P Mehta3,
  4. Joshua A Hirsch2
  1. 1Interventional Neuroradiology, Monash Imaging, Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2NeuroEndovascular Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  3. 3Memorial Neuroscience Institute, Hollywood, Florida, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr R V Chandra, Interventional Neuroradiology, Monash Imaging, Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3168, Australia; ronil.chandra{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

In a recent commentary entitled ‘Does the use of IV tPA in the current era of rapid and predictable recanalization by mechanical embolectomy represent good value?’,1 we considered the advantages and disadvantages of administering intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV tPA) in patients also eligible for mechanical embolectomy. This generated much discussion, underscoring the topical nature of the question. Weber et al2 have recently published an important contribution on this issue.

They retrospectively analyzed 283 consecutive patients treated with mechanical embolectomy in a tertiary neurovascular center over 14 months; data on prior IV tPA and functional outcome were available for 250 patients.2 When they compared patients treated with IV tPA and embolectomy (n=105) with patients receiving embolectomy alone (n=145), there was no significant difference in the rates of successful recanalization (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) 2b/3, 73.8% vs 73.1%, p=0.952), symptomatic hemorrhage (5.9% vs 3.5%, p=0.387), and long term favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0–2, 35.2% vs 40%, p=0.444). Therefore, prior use of …

View Full Text


  • Contributors RVC composed the initial draft. All authors reviewed and made editorial suggestions that ultimately resulted in the final draft.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.