Bridging therapy versus direct endovascular thrombectomy in patients with established large infarct: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND

Whether patients with large core infarctions should undergo intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is currently a subject of controversy. The study aimed to investigate the association of prior use of IVT with outcomes of EVT patients with large core infarctions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective cohort included patients with acute large vessel occlusion and Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) of 0-5 from 38 stroke centers across China between November 2021 and February 2023. The primary outcome was defined as favorable functional outcomes, which is 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores ranging from 0 to 3. Procedural outcomes included measures of successful and effective recanalization. Safety outcomes included the incidence of any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH, and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Of 490 patients, 122 (24.5%) were treated with IVT before EVT. Bridging therapy and its transfer modes showed no association with any of the measured outcomes. Compared to direct EVT, bridging therapy was associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic ICH in very elderly patients and a decreased risk of any ICH in patients with admission NIHSS scores of 20 or higher. Additionally, early stroke severity may alter the odds of any ICH in patients with bridging therapy versus direct EVT (inverse probability weighting adjusted P value for interaction=0.003 and 0.007, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In large core infarction patients with high admission NIHSS or very elderly age, bridging therapy appears to have some advantages over direct EVT in reducing the risk of ICH.