Key result
Tenecteplase shows similar discharge independence and sICH to alteplase but achieves faster door-to-needle times.
Why the study?
Tenecteplase is at least non-inferior to alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke, but real-world data in routine UK clinical practice are limited.
Does tenecteplase improve process times, safety, and effectiveness compared to alteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke in routine practice?
Population
12919 patients with ischaemic stroke undergoing thrombolysis
Comparison
Tenecteplase vs alteplase
Design
Registry-based observational study
Authors
Loading...
May enable faster thrombolysis with tenecteplase in routine UK practice; leaves open long-term outcomes versus alteplase.
Observational (n=12,919)
Yes
Does tenecteplase improve process times, safety, and effectiveness compared to alteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke in routine practice?
Absolute Event Rate: 49% vs 48%
p-value: p=>0.05
Real-world registry data demonstrates that tenecteplase is associated with faster treatment times and similar safety and effectiveness outcomes compared to alteplase in acute ischaemic stroke, supporting its use as a first-line thrombolytic agent.
Stanley et al. (2026) conducted an observational in acute ischaemic stroke (n=12,919). Tenecteplase (TNK) vs. Alteplase (rtPA) was evaluated on Independent at discharge (modified Rankin Score 0-2) (p=>0.05). Tenecteplase demonstrated similar rates of independence at discharge (49% vs 48%) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (3.3% vs 3.4%) compared to alteplase, but with faster door-to-needle times.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: