Yogendrakumar Vignan, Beharry James, Churilov Leonid, Alidin Khairunnisa, Ugalde Melissa, Pesavento Lauren, Weir Louise, Mitchell Peter J, Kleinig Timothy J, Yassi Nawaf, Thijs Vincent, Wu Teddy Y, Shah Darshan G, Dewey Helen M, Wijeratne Tissa, Yan Bernard, Desmond Patricia M, Sharma Gagan, Parsons Mark W, Donnan Geoffrey A, Davis Stephen M, Campbell Bruce C V
Department of Medicine and Neurology, Melbourne Brain Centre at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Department of Medicine, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
Ann Neurol. 2023 Mar;93(3):489-499. doi: 10.1002/ana.26547. Epub 2022 Nov 30.
Tenecteplase improves reperfusion compared to alteplase in patients with large vessel occlusions. To determine whether this improvement varies across the spectrum of thrombolytic agent to reperfusion assessment times, we performed a comparative analysis of tenecteplase and alteplase reperfusion rates.
Patients with large vessel occlusion and treatment with thrombolysis were pooled from the Melbourne Stroke Registry, and the EXTEND-IA and EXTEND-IA TNK trials. The primary outcome, thrombolytic-induced reperfusion, was defined as the absence of retrievable thrombus or >50% reperfusion at imaging reassessment. We compared the treatment effect of tenecteplase and alteplase, accounting for thrombolytic to assessment exposure times, via Poisson modeling. We compared 90-day outcomes of patients who achieved reperfusion with a thrombolytic to patients who achieved reperfusion via endovascular therapy using ordinal logistic regression.
Among 893 patients included in the primary analysis, thrombolytic-induced reperfusion was observed in 184 (21%) patients. Tenecteplase was associated with higher rates of reperfusion (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-2.07, p = 0.01). Findings were consistent in patient subgroups with first segment (aIRR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.93-2.14) and second segment (aIRR = 2.07, 95% CI = 0.98-4.37) middle cerebral artery occlusions. Increased thrombolytic to reperfusion assessment times were associated with reperfusion (tenecteplase: adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 1.08 per 15 minutes, 95% CI = 1.04-1.13 vs alteplase: aRR = 1.06 per 15 minutes, 95% CI = 1.00-1.13). No significant treatment-by-time interaction was observed (p = 0.87). Reperfusion via thrombolysis was associated with improved 90-day modified Rankin Scale scores (adjusted common odds ratio = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.54-3.01) compared to patients who achieved reperfusion following endovascular therapy.
Tenecteplase, compared to alteplase, increases prethrombectomy reperfusion, regardless of the time from administration to reperfusion assessment. Prethrombectomy reperfusion is associated with better clinical outcomes. ANN NEUROL 2023;93:489-499.
与阿替普酶相比,替奈普酶可改善大血管闭塞患者的再灌注情况。为了确定这种改善在溶栓药物范围至再灌注评估时间内是否存在差异,我们对替奈普酶和阿替普酶的再灌注率进行了比较分析。
从墨尔本卒中登记处以及EXTEND-IA和EXTEND-IA TNK试验中汇总大血管闭塞且接受溶栓治疗的患者。主要结局,即溶栓诱导的再灌注,定义为在影像学重新评估时不存在可取出的血栓或再灌注>50%。我们通过泊松模型比较了替奈普酶和阿替普酶的治疗效果,并考虑了溶栓至评估暴露时间。我们使用有序逻辑回归比较了通过溶栓实现再灌注的患者与通过血管内治疗实现再灌注的患者的90天结局。
在纳入初步分析的893例患者中,184例(21%)患者观察到溶栓诱导的再灌注。替奈普酶与更高的再灌注率相关(调整后的发病率比值比[aIRR]=1.50,95%置信区间[CI]=1.09-2.07,p=0.01)。在大脑中动脉第一分支(aIRR=1.41,95%CI=0.93-2.14)和第二分支(aIRR=2.07,95%CI=0.98-4.37)闭塞的患者亚组中,结果一致。溶栓至再灌注评估时间的增加与再灌注相关(替奈普酶:每15分钟调整后的风险比[aRR]=1.08,95%CI=1.04-1.13;阿替普酶:每15分钟aRR=1.06,95%CI=1.00-1.13)。未观察到显著的治疗-时间交互作用(p=0.