To bridge or not to bridge: The role of intravenous thrombolysis in mechanical thrombectomy for large cerebral infarctions through a two-center cohort study and meta-analysis

Background

The effectiveness and safety of intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in large cerebral infarctions remains uncertain. This study compares bridging MT, which includes intravenous thrombolysis, to direct MT without it.

Methods

Data from 298 patients with anterior circulation large cerebral infarctions, assessed via non-enhanced CT (ASPECTS 0-5), who underwent MT in two-center cohort studies, were analyzed. Primary outcomes focused on independent ambulation (modified Rankin Scale scores 0-3) at 90 days post-stroke. Safety outcomes included parenchymal hemorrhage (PH) rates and mortality. We conducted a sensitivity analysis considering the timing from symptom onset to imaging within 4.5 hours. Additionally, a meta-analysis of 17 studies involving 3527 patients assessed the interventions' effectiveness and safety, with further scrutiny of high-quality studies (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale ratings 7-9) to increase robustness of results.

Results

No significant differences were found in 90-day independent ambulation between the bridging MT and the direct MT group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.15, 95% CI 0.68-1.94). Rates of PH and mortality were also similar across groups. These outcomes were consistent in the subgroup imaged within 4.5 hours of symptom onset. The meta-analysis supported these outcomes, showing no improvement in ambulation (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 0.82-1.64) or reduction in PH with bridging MT. Further analysis of high-quality studies supported these results.

Conclusions

The cohort study and meta-analysis provide Class II evidence indicating no significant differences in functional outcomes or hemorrhagic risks between bridging and direct MT for large cerebral infarctions. This suggests that direct MT might be a viable alternative to bridging MT.