Search

Background: Intracranial occlusion site, contrast permeability, and clot burden are thrombus characteristics that influence alteplase-associated reperfusion. In this study, we assessed the reperfusion efficacy of tenecteplase and alteplase in subgroups based on these characteristics in a pooled analysis of the EXTEND-IA TNK trial (Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase Before Endovascular Therapy for Ischemic Stroke). Methods: Patients with large vessel occlusion were randomized to treatment with tenecteplase (0.25 or 0.4 mg/kg) or alteplase before thrombectomy in hospitals across Australia and New Zealand (2015–2019). The primary outcome, early reperfusion, was defined as the absence of retrievable thrombus or >50% reperfusion on first-pass angiogram. We compared the effect of tenecteplase versus alteplase overall, and in subgroups, based on the following measured with computed tomography angiography: intracranial occlusion site, contrast permeability (measured via residual flow grades), and clot burden (measured via clot burden scores). We adjusted for covariates using mixed effects logistic regression models. Results: Tenecteplase was associated with higher odds of early reperfusion (75/369 [20%] versus alteplase: 9/96 [9%], adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.18 [95% CI, 1.03–4.63]). The difference between thrombolytics was notable in occlusions with low clot burden (tenecteplase: 66/261 [25%] versus alteplase: 5/67 [7%], aOR, 3.93 [95% CI, 1.50–10.33]) when compared to high clot burden lesions (tenecteplase: 9/108 [8%] versus alteplase: 4/29 [14%], aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.16–2.06]; P interaction =0.01). We did not observe an association between contrast permeability and tenecteplase treatment effect (permeability present: aOR, 2.83 [95% CI, 1.00–8.05] versus absent: aOR, 1.98 [95% CI, 0.65–6.03]; P interaction =0.62). Tenecteplase treatment effect was superior with distal M1 or M2 occlusions (53/176 [30%] versus alteplase: 4/42 [10%], aOR, 3.73 [95% CI, 1.25–11.11]), but both thrombolytics had limited efficacy with internal carotid artery occlusions (tenecteplase 1/73 [1%] versus alteplase 1/19 [5%], aOR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.01–3.83]; P interaction =0.16). Conclusions: Tenecteplase demonstrates superior early reperfusion versus alteplase in lesions with low clot burden. Reperfusion efficacy remains limited in internal carotid artery occlusions and lesions with high clot burden. Further innovation in thrombolytic therapies are required.

Background: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) became standard care in 2015 after positive trials in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion (LVO) 0-6h and in 2018 for selected patients up to 24h from symptom onset. Objective: To evaluate whether patients receiving MT at our center would have comparable outcomes in patients presenting to our comprehensive stroke center (direct) vs transfer patients (drip-and-ship) Methods: This is a retrospective observational study utilising prospectively collected stroke database for patients receiving MT for LVO in anterior and posterior circulation in South Brisbane network of 7 hospitals (6 drip-and-ship centers and 1 MT-capable center), Australia which serves 1.6 million. Day 90 modified Rankin scale (mRS) was used to assess functional outcomes via outpatient follow up at direct or referral center. The association of drip and ship versus mothership treatment with day 90 mRS was tested in ordinal logistic regression adjusted for age, baseline NIHSS and IV thrombolysis. Results: Of 191 patients who underwent Mechanical Thrombectomy from 2015 to June 2018 at our center, 22 patients were excluded from analysis as either their baseline mRS was >1 (13) or follow up data was missing (9). The mean age was 64.4 years. Median (inter-quartile range, IQR) NIHSS was 16 (9-21) on admission and 7 (2-18) on day 1. Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) ≥2b was achieved in 88.9%. At 90 days, 50.9% achieved excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1), 61.4% achieved good functional outcome (mRS 0-2) and 69% achieved favorable outcome (mRS 0-3). Median mRS was 1 (IQR 0-5) in 96 patients presenting directly to the endovascular center and 1 (IQR 1-4) in 73 drip-and-ship patients (common odds ratio 1.07 (95%CI 0.62-1.83), p=0.82) Conclusion: Our 7-center network experience confirms real world reproducibility of trial results, interestingly with no difference in functional outcomes for direct vs drip-and-ship patients.