Intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy in patients with atrial fibrillation

Bozzani, Antonio; Arici, Vittorio; Ragni, Franco; Sterpetti, Antonio V.; Arbustini, Eloisa

doi:10.1136/jnis-2022-019749

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is associated with a five-fold increase in the incidence of AIS, leading to an inferior functional outcome and increased mortality in ischemic stroke patients [ 19 ]. The efficacy of IVT before EVT in patients with AF remains controversial [ 20 ]. Additionally, IVT before EVT may increase the risk of bleeding, particularly in AF patients receiving anticoagulant therapy [ 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy in patients with atrial fibrillation

Bao,

Huang,

et al. 2024

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the standard treatment for patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO). However, the efficacy and safety of IVT before EVT in AIS-LVO patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains controversial. Thus, this study aims to assess the benefit of IVT plus EVT and direct EVT alone in AIS-LVO patients with AF. Method Relevant studies that evaluated the outcomes of IVT plus EVT versus direct EVT alone in AIS-LVO patients with AF were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to August 10, 2023. The outcomes included successful reperfusion (score of 2b to 3 for thrombolysis in cerebral infarction), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), good clinical outcome (modified Rankin scale score ≤ 2) at 3 months, and 3-month mortality. Result Eight eligible observational studies involving 6998 (3827 in the IVT plus EVT group and 3171 in the direct EVT group) patients with AIS-LVO complicated by AF were included. Compared with direct EVT, IVT plus EVT resulted in better 3-month clinical outcomes (odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.54) and lower 3-month mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68–0.88). However, the incidence of sICH (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.91–1.75) and the rate of successful reperfusion (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83–1.17) were not significantly different between treatment modalities. Conclusion IVT plus EVT leads to better functional outcomes and lower mortality in AIS-LVO patients with AF. Withholding IVT plus EVT from patients with AF alone may not be justified.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%