Does thrombolysis add any value to mechanical thrombectomy after stroke?

Mechanical thrombectomy outcomes with and without intravenous thrombolysis in stroke patients: a meta-analysis.

Mistry EA, Mistry AM, Nakawah MO, et al.

Stroke 2017; 48:2450-2456.



Whether prior intravenous thrombolysis provides any additional benefits to the patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel, acute ischemic stroke remains unclear.


We conducted a meta-analysis of 13 studies obtained through PubMed and EMBASE database searches to determine whether functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale) at 90 days, successful recanalization rate, and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage rate differed between patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy with (MT+IVT) and without (MT-IVT) pre-treatment with intravenousthrombolysis.


MT+IVT patients compared with MT-IVT patients had better functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score, 0-2; summary odds ratio [OR], 1.27 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-1.55]; P=0.02; n=1769/1174), lower mortality (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.55-0.91]; P=0.006; n=1774/1202), and higher rate of successful recanalization (OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.96]; P=0.01; n=1652/1216) without having increased odds of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.69-1.77]; P=0.67; n=1471/1143). A greater number of MT+IVT patients required ≤2 passes with a neurothrombectomy device to achieve successful recanalization (OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.37-3.10]; P=0.0005; n=316/231).


Our results demonstrated that mechanical thrombectomy with intravenous thrombolysis patients had better functional outcomes, lower mortality, higher rate of successful recanalization, requiring lower number of device passes, and equal odds of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage compared with MT-IVT patients. The results support the current guidelines of offering intravenous thrombolysis to eligible patients even if they are being considered for mechanical thrombectomy. Because the data are compiled from studies where the 2 groups differed based on eligibility for intravenousthrombolysis, randomized trials are necessary to accurately evaluate the added value of intravenous thrombolysis in patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy.


The following is a related article:

Muir KW, Ford GA, Messow CM, et al; PISTE Investigators. Endovascular therapy for acute ischaemic stroke: the Pragmatic Ischaemic Stroke Thrombectomy Evaluation (PISTE) randomised, controlled trial. JNNP 2017; 88:38-44.

Both references are cited in the neurochecklist:

Ischaemic stroke: thrombectomy

Abstract link 1

Abstract link 2

By Neilbarman at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s