Thrombectomy alone versus intravenous thrombolysis before thrombectomy for acute basilar artery occlusion

Abstract

BackgroundEndovascular treatment (EVT) is a well-established approach for acute ischemic stroke. Whether bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before EVT confers any benefits remains uncertain. The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of direct EVT with or without bridging IVT in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO).MethodsThis multicenter cohort study enrolled 647 patients with acute BAO who underwent either bridging IVT before EVT or direct EVT from the BASILAR registry. The primary outcome was an independent functional outcome measured by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–2. Secondary outcomes included excellent functional outcome (mRS 0–1), favorable functional outcome (mRS 0–3), and mortality rate at 90 days, as well as symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and successful reperfusion between the two treatment groups.ResultsDirect EVT and bridging IVT before EVT exhibited similar primary outcomes (27.3% vs 27.7%, respectively) and distributions of mRS scores at 90 days. Moreover, rates of sICH and 90-day mortality were not significantly different between the two groups (7.3% vs 6.0%, adjusted OR (aOR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.86, P=0.84 for sICH; 46.8% vs 43.7%, aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.38, P=0.53 for mortality).ConclusionsAmong patients with acute BAO, functional outcomes were similar between those treated with bridging IVT before EVT and those treated with direct EVT, and there was no difference between the two groups in terms of sICH and mortality rates.