RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Direct mechanical thrombectomy in tPA-ineligible and -eligible patients versus the bridging approach: a meta-analysis
JF Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
JO J NeuroIntervent Surg
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
SP neurintsurg-2018-013834
DO 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-013834
A1 Johannes Kaesmacher
A1 Pasquale Mordasini
A1 Marcel Arnold
A1 Elena López-Cancio
A1 Neus Cerdá
A1 Tobias Boeckh-Behrens
A1 Justus F Kleine
A1 Mayank Goyal
A1 Michael D Hill
A1 Vitor Mendes Pereira
A1 Jeffrey L Saver
A1 Jan Gralla
A1 Urs Fischer
YR 2018
UL http://jnis.bmj.com/content/early/2018/04/28/neurintsurg-2018-013834.abstract
AB Background Whether pretreatment with intravenous thrombolysis prior to mechanical thrombectomy (IVT+MTE) adds additional benefit over direct mechanical thrombectomy (dMTE) in patients with large vessel occlusions (LVO) is a matter of debate.Methods This study-level meta-analysis was presented in accord with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using the inverse variance heterogeneity model and displayed as summary Odds Ratio (sOR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Sensitivity analysis was performed by distinguishing between studies including dMTE patients eligible for IVT (IVT-E) or ineligible for IVT (IVT-IN). Primary outcome measures were functional independence (modified Rankin Scale≤2) and mortality at day 90, successful reperfusion, and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage.Results Twenty studies, incorporating 5279 patients, were included. There was no evidence that rates of successful reperfusion differed in dMTE and IVT+MTE patients (sOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28). In studies including IVT-IN dMTE patients, patients undergoing dMTE tended to have lower rates of functional independence and had higher odds for a fatal outcome as compared with IVT+MTE patients (sOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01 and sOR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73). However, no such treatment group effect was found when analyses were confined to cohorts with a lower risk of selection bias (including IVT-E dMTE patients).Conclusion The quality of evidence regarding the relative merits of IVT+MTE versus dMTE is low. When considering studies with lower selection bias, the data suggest that dMTE may offer comparable safety and efficacy as compared with IVT+MTE. The conduct of randomized-controlled clinical trials seems justified.