What does this research mean for the field?

In real-world clinical practice, systemic thrombolytic therapy is associated with more favorable clinical outcomes in ischemic stroke patients with less severe baseline deficits, while intravascular thrombectomy and bridge therapy achieve high technical success but worse clinical outcomes primarily driven by greater baseline severity and longer intervention delays. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To compare the real-world technical and clinical success rates of systemic thrombolytic therapy, intravascular thrombectomy, and combined bridge therapy in patients presenting with ischemic stroke.

September 6, 2026S S Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry

Success rates of revascularization methods in ischemic stroke in clinical practice

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

СКС. В. Котов MSM. V. Sutormin EDE.S. Dzhvaridze

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Prospective observational study reveals better functional recovery with systemic thrombolysis in ischemic stroke, highlighting the influence of baseline stroke severity and time to treatment.

Key Points

To compare the real-world technical and clinical success rates of systemic thrombolytic therapy, intravascular thrombectomy, and combined bridge therapy in patients presenting with ischemic stroke.
Conducted an open-label prospective observational study of 225 patients with ischemic stroke assigned to systemic thrombolytic therapy (Group 1; n=151, 67.1%), intravascular thrombectomy (Group 2; n=35, 15.6%), or combined bridge therapy (Group 3; n=39, 17.3%).
Evaluated technical reperfusion via Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scores, baseline and discharge neurological status using the NIHSS, and functional outcomes at discharge and 6 months using the modified Rankin Scale and Barthel Index.
Technical success (TICI 2b–3) occurred in 74.3% of Group 2 and 79.5% of Group 3, despite significantly higher baseline stroke severity in both endovascular groups compared to Group 1 (p<0.002).
At discharge, Group 1 achieved the greatest reduction in neurological deficit (p=0.011), with functional independence (mRS 0–2) reached by 28.5% in Group 1, 8.6% in Group 2, and 12.8% in Group 3.
Six-month mortality was 24.5% in Group 1, 51.4% in Group 2, and 33.3% in Group 3 (p=0.002 between Groups 1 and 2), with significantly higher median Barthel Index scores in Group 1 (90 [60; 100]) than Group 2 (60 [50; 85]) and Group 3 (65 [50; 97.5]).

Cite This Study

Котов et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9d1ee128139818eab220ae https://doi.org/10.17116/jnevro202612608245

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 6, 2026S S Korsakov Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry

Success rates of revascularization methods in ischemic stroke in clinical practice

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

СКС. В. Котов MSM. V. Sutormin EDE.S. Dzhvaridze

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Prospective observational study reveals better functional recovery with systemic thrombolysis in ischemic stroke, highlighting the influence of baseline stroke severity and time to treatment.

Key Points

To compare the real-world technical and clinical success rates of systemic thrombolytic therapy, intravascular thrombectomy, and combined bridge therapy in patients presenting with ischemic stroke.
Conducted an open-label prospective observational study of 225 patients with ischemic stroke assigned to systemic thrombolytic therapy (Group 1; n=151, 67.1%), intravascular thrombectomy (Group 2; n=35, 15.6%), or combined bridge therapy (Group 3; n=39, 17.3%).
Evaluated technical reperfusion via Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scores, baseline and discharge neurological status using the NIHSS, and functional outcomes at discharge and 6 months using the modified Rankin Scale and Barthel Index.
Technical success (TICI 2b–3) occurred in 74.3% of Group 2 and 79.5% of Group 3, despite significantly higher baseline stroke severity in both endovascular groups compared to Group 1 (p<0.002).
At discharge, Group 1 achieved the greatest reduction in neurological deficit (p=0.011), with functional independence (mRS 0–2) reached by 28.5% in Group 1, 8.6% in Group 2, and 12.8% in Group 3.
Six-month mortality was 24.5% in Group 1, 51.4% in Group 2, and 33.3% in Group 3 (p=0.002 between Groups 1 and 2), with significantly higher median Barthel Index scores in Group 1 (90 [60; 100]) than Group 2 (60 [50; 85]) and Group 3 (65 [50; 97.5]).

Cite This Study

Котов et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9d1ee128139818eab220ae https://doi.org/10.17116/jnevro202612608245

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark