Is bridging with intravenous thrombolysis of any benefit in endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke?

Results: The two groups had similar demographic and vascular risk factor distribution, as well as National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score on admission (mean ± SD: 14.8 ± 4.7 and 16.0 ± 5.3; P = 0.23). No difference was found in Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction recanalization rates (score of 2 or 3) after combined or endovascular therapy alone (83.33% and 79.03%; P = 0.585). Favorable outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of <2 at 90 days, also did not differ between the bridging group and the endovascular-only group (37.5% and 32.76%; P = 0.643). There was no difference in mortality rate (19.04% and 29.03%; P = 0.5618) and sICH rate (11.9% and 9.68%; P = 0.734). A significant difference was found in mean time from symptom onset to treatment in the bridging group and the endovascular-only group (227 ± 88 min vs. 125 ± 40 min; P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Combining IV thrombolysis with endovascular therapy resulted in similar outcome, revascularization, sICH, and mortality rates compared with endovascular therapy alone. Prospective clinical studies comparing both treatment strategies in acute ischemic stroke are warranted.

Objective: Large vessel occlusions with heavy clot burden are less likely to improve with intravenous (IV) thrombolysis alone. The purpose of this study was to show whether a combination of IV thrombolysis and endovascular therapy was superior to endovascular treatment alone.

Methods: Data for 104 patients with acute large artery occlusion treated between 2005 and 2010 were reviewed. Forty-two received endovascular therapy in combination with IV thrombolysis (bridging group), and 62 received endovascular therapy only. Clinical outcome, mortality rate, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) rate were compared between the two groups.