Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2023 Jun 12;13(6):e064322. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064322.
Current published guidelines and meta-analyses comparing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) alone versus EVT with bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) suggest that EVT alone is non-inferior to EVT with bridging thrombolysis in achieving favourable functional outcome. Because of this controversy, we aimed to systematically update the evidence and meta-analyse data from randomised trials comparing EVT alone versus EVT with bridging thrombolysis, and performed an economic evaluation comparing both strategies.
We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing EVT with or without bridging thrombolysis in patients presenting with large vessel occlusions. We will identify eligible studies by systematically searching the following databases from inception without any language restrictions: MEDLINE (through Ovid), Embase and the Cochrane Library. The following criteria will be used to assess eligibility for inclusion: (1) adult patients ≥18 years old; (2) randomised patients to EVT alone or to EVT with IVT; and (3) measured outcomes, including functional outcomes, at least 90 days after randomisation. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the identified articles, extract information and assess the risk of bias of eligible studies. We will use the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool to evaluate risk of bias. We will also use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome. We will then perform an economic evaluation based on the extracted data.
This systematic review will not require a research ethics approval because no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings by publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal and via presentation at conferences.
CRD42022315608.
目前发表的指南和荟萃分析比较了单纯血管内血栓切除术(EVT)与 EVT 联合桥接静脉溶栓(IVT),表明在实现良好功能结局方面,单纯 EVT 不劣于 EVT 联合桥接溶栓。由于存在这种争议,我们旨在系统更新证据,并对比较单纯 EVT 与 EVT 联合桥接溶栓的随机试验数据进行荟萃分析,并对两种策略进行经济评估。
我们将对单独接受 EVT 与接受 EVT 联合桥接溶栓治疗的大血管闭塞患者的随机对照试验进行系统评价。我们将在没有任何语言限制的情况下,从初始状态系统地搜索以下数据库,以确定符合条件的研究:(1)成人患者≥18 岁;(2)随机分配到单独接受 EVT 或接受 EVT 联合 IVT 的患者;(3)至少在随机分组后 90 天测量的结局,包括功能结局。两名评审员将独立筛选确定的文章,提取信息并评估合格研究的偏倚风险。我们将使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。我们还将使用推荐评估、制定与评估分级(Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation)方法评估每个结局的证据确定性。然后,我们将根据提取的数据进行经济评估。
本系统评价不需要研究伦理批准,因为不会使用机密患者数据。我们将通过在同行评审期刊上发表研究结果和会议报告来传播我们的发现。
PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42022315608。