No abstract

Background Thrombolytic therapy significantly improves outcomes among patients with acute ischemic stroke. While cancer outcomes have dramatically improved, the utilization, safety, and mortality outcomes of patients with cancer who receive thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke are unknown. Methods Using a national database, we identified all hospitalizations for acute ischemic stroke requiring thrombolytic therapy between 2003 and 2015. Patients with contraindications to thrombolytic therapy were excluded. Following propensity score matching for comorbidity burden, trends in thrombolytic therapy use and its effect on in-hospital mortality, intracranial or all-cause bleeding, and the combined endpoint of mortality and all-cause bleeding, by presence/absence of cancer were evaluated. We also evaluated 30- and 90-day readmission rates post-thrombolytic therapy administration. Results We identified 237,687 acute ischemic stroke hospitalizations requiring thrombolytic therapy, of which 26,328 (11%) had an underlying cancer. Over the study period, thrombolytic therapy use increased across all acute ischemic stroke admissions, irrespective of cancer presence (12.4/1000 in 2003 to 81.1/1000 in 2015, P < 0.0001). However, thrombolytic therapy utilization differed by cancer presence (4.8% cancer vs.·5.1% non-cancer, P = 0.001). There was no difference in intracranial bleeding (9.6% vs. 9.7%), all-cause bleeding (13.2% vs. 13.2%), or in-hospital mortality (7.6% vs. 7.2%). While there was no difference in 30-day readmission rates by cancer presence (24% vs. 29%, P = 0.40), at 90-days, cancer patients saw higher readmission rates (17.2% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.02). Conclusions Contemporary thrombolytic therapy use for acute ischemic stroke has risen, irrespective of presence of cancer. Yet, patients with comorbid cancer appear to see lower rates of thrombolytic therapy use for acute ischemic stroke, despite no difference in the rate of intracranial bleeding or mortality after adjustment for comorbidities.

Introduction: Patients with large vessel occlusion stroke (LVO) benefit from thrombolysis before thrombectomy. Previous meta-analysis suggested superiority of tenecteplase over alteplase in achieving good clinical outcome at 3 months. Aim: We aimed to compare clinical outcomes after tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg versus alteplase in patients with LVO. Methods: An experienced librarian searched PubMed and Scopus databases through July 13, 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing tenecteplase with alteplase in patients with LVO. We included trials using 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase dose, reporting blindly assessed pre-specified clinical outcomes at 3-4 months among patients with LVO. Two authors independently reviewed eligibility and extracted the data. We used RevMan 5.4 and random effect models with inverse variance weights to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). This systematic review is registered (CRD42022349414). Results: From 585 retrieved abstracts, 3 trials and 1 pooled secondary analysis involving 704 unique patients met the inclusion criteria. Among patients with LVO, tenecteplase 0.25mg/kg is not superior to alteplase in achieving good clinical outcome (defined as modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-2, OR 1.82 (95% CI 0.91-3.65, panel A); nor all-cause mortality, OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.49-1.13, panel B); while tenecteplase increases the odds of excellent outcome (mRS 0-1), OR 1.52 (95% CI 1.11-2.09, panel C), and odds of functional improvement (defined as a shift on the ordinal mRS), OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.07-2.20, panel D). High heterogeneity was present (I2 =70%) for the good clinical outcome. Conclusion: Tenecteplase is not superior over alteplase in achieving good clinical outcome. Tenecteplase, as compared to alteplase, increases the odds of functional improvement and excellent outcome. These findings support bridging tenecteplase in patients with LVO.

No abstract