Key result
Tenecteplase linked to ~317% higher odds of achieving door-to-needle times under 30 minutes versus alteplase.
Why the study?
Following guideline recommendations, a centre switched from alteplase to tenecteplase for IV thrombolysis, prompting a comparison of door-to-needle time between agents pre- and post-changeover.
Does tenecteplase reduce door-to-needle time compared to alteplase in patients receiving IV thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke?
Population
301 patients who received IV thrombolysis at a university hospital stroke unit
Comparison
Tenecteplase vs alteplase
Design
Single-centre retrospective observational study
Authors
Loading...
Tenecteplase switch may streamline thrombolysis workflows without DNT delay; leaves open broader outcome benefits pending multicentre confirmation.
Observational (n=301)
No
Does tenecteplase reduce door-to-needle time compared to alteplase in patients receiving IV thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke?
Effect estimate: aOR 4.165 (95% CI 2.192-7.912)
Absolute Event Rate: 35% vs 11%
p-value: p=<0.001
Routine adoption of tenecteplase for acute ischaemic stroke thrombolysis is associated with significantly shorter door-to-needle times compared to alteplase in a real-world setting.
Abdou et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Acute ischaemic stroke (n=301). Tenecteplase vs. Alteplase was evaluated on Door-to-Needle Time (DNT) < 30 minutes (aOR 4.165, 95% CI 2.192-7.912, p=<0.001). Tenecteplase for acute ischaemic stroke was associated with increased odds of door-to-needle time <30 minutes compared to alteplase (35% vs 11%; aOR 4.165; 95% CI 2.192-7.912; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: