Bridging Thrombolysis Versus Direct Endovascular Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients With ASPECTS ≤5: A Meta‐Analysis
- 1Army 78th Military Group Hospital
Abstract
Background Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is a standard treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, the efficacy and safety of bridging thrombolysis (BT) compared to direct EVT (dEVT) remain controversial, particularly in patients with large core infarcts (Alberta stroke program early CT score [ASPECTS] ≤5). This meta‐analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of BT versus dEVT in this population. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1, 2010, to September 21, 2024, for studies comparing BT and dEVT in AIS patients with ASPECTS ≤5. Outcomes included functional outcomes (mRS 0–2 and 0–3), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH (sICH), 90‐day mortality, and successful reperfusion. Data were pooled using random‐effects models. Results Twelve studies (3907 patients) were included. BT significantly improved favorable (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.17–1.76) and moderate functional outcomes (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.10–1.48) compared to dEVT. No significant differences were observed in sICH, ICH, 90‐day mortality, or successful reperfusion. Conclusions Our findings suggest that BT may be associated with better functional outcomes in patients with ASPECTS ≤5, without increasing major safety events compared with dEVT. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because the evidence is mainly observational, and residual confounding cannot be excluded. Further well‐designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Related
- Endovascular Thrombectomy in Patients With Cancer and Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
- Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Composition and Tissue Heterogeneity as Predictors of Functional Outcomes After Endovascular Thrombectomy in Patients With Large Ischemic Core
- Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke with large infarct core: translating results from a randomized trial into clinical practice
- Functional Benefit and Safety of Adjunctive Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis After Successful Endovascular Thrombectomy: An Updated and Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
- Conscious Sedation with Dexmedetomidine or Midazolam during Endovascular Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Protocol of the Multicenter PEACE Randomized Trial
BibTeX
@article{wang2026bridging,
title = {{Bridging Thrombolysis Versus Direct Endovascular Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients With ASPECTS ≤5: A Meta‐Analysis}},
author = {Shuang Wang and Bing Wu and Fang Liu and Guiyan Sun},
journal = {Brain and behavior},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1002/brb3.71851},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13691425},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Bridging Thrombolysis Versus Direct Endovascular Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients With ASPECTS ≤5: A Meta‐Analysis
AU - Shuang Wang
AU - Bing Wu
AU - Fang Liu
AU - Guiyan Sun
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - Brain and behavior
DO - 10.1002/brb3.71851
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13691425
AB - Background Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is a standard treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, the efficacy and safety of bridging thrombolysis (BT) compared to direct EVT (dEVT) remain controversial, particularly in patients with large core infarcts (Alberta stroke program early CT score [ASPECTS] ≤5). This meta‐analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of BT versus dEVT in this population. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1, 2010, to September 21, 2024, for studies comparing BT and dEVT in AIS patients with ASPECTS ≤5. Outcomes included functional outcomes (mRS 0–2 and 0–3), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH (sICH), 90‐day mortality, and successful reperfusion. Data were pooled using random‐effects models. Results Twelve studies (3907 patients) were included. BT significantly improved favorable (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.17–1.76) and moderate functional outcomes (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.10–1.48) compared to dEVT. No significant differences were observed in sICH, ICH, 90‐day mortality, or successful reperfusion. Conclusions Our findings suggest that BT may be associated with better functional outcomes in patients with ASPECTS ≤5, without increasing major safety events compared with dEVT. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because the evidence is mainly observational, and residual confounding cannot be excluded. Further well‐designed randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
SN - 2162-3279
ER -