Key result
Tenecteplase shows no benefit over alteplase for 3-month functional independence in large vessel occlusion stroke.
Why the study?
The comparative efficacy and safety of tenecteplase versus alteplase as bridging intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy in AIS patients with large vessel occlusion were uncertain.
Does tenecteplase improve 3-month functional outcomes compared to alteplase as bridging thrombolysis prior to mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion?
Cohort (n=1,505)
Yes
Does tenecteplase improve 3-month functional outcomes compared to alteplase as bridging thrombolysis prior to mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion?
Odds Ratio: 0.903 (95% CI 0.679–1.201)
Absolute Event Rate: 46% vs 48.3%
p-value: p=0.485
In a real-world multicenter cohort of patients with acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion, bridging thrombolysis with tenecteplase prior to mechanical thrombectomy demonstrated comparable 3-month functional independence and safety profiles to alteplase.
Comparable bridging outcomes suggested for tenecteplase versus alteplase; leaves open confirmation by randomized trials in large vessel occlusion.
ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase versus alteplase as bridging intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and large vessel occlusion (LVO).MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, data were extracted from the multicenter Chinese Acute Stroke Evaluation and Management Ⅱ (CASE-Ⅱ) database (NCT04487340). Patients with AIS and large vessel occlusion who received tenecteplase or alteplase followed by mechanical thrombectomy within 24 hours of symptom onset from December 2022 to March 2025 were included. The patients were divided into the tenecteplase group and the alteplase group. Propensity score matching (1∶4) was performed based on age, sex, door-to-needle time (DNT), door-to-puncture time (DPT), and onset-to-door time. Binary logistic regression and general linear models were used to compare 3-month functional and safety outcomes. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for patients with onset-to-needle time (ONT)≤4.5 h, and subgroup analyses were performed based on age, sex, baseline NIHSS score, occlusion site, DNT, and DPT.ResultsAmong 1505 enrolled patients, 250 received tenecteplase and 1255 received alteplase. After matching, 224 tenecteplase-treated and 767 alteplase-treated patients were included. No significant differences were observed in 3-month functional outcomes between the two groups (all P>0.05). However, the tenecteplase group had lower 3-month all-cause mortality before matching (OR=0.676, 95%CI: 0.470-0.972, P=0.032). After matching, there were no significant differences in functional or safety outcomes (all P>0.05). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses also showed no significant differences in 3-month functional independence (all P>0.05).ConclusionIn patients with AIS and large vessel occlusion undergoing bridging thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy, tenecteplase and alteplase showed comparable 3-month functional outcomes and safety profiles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shi et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion (n=1,505). Tenecteplase vs. Alteplase was evaluated on 3-month functional independence (mRS score 0-2) (OR 0.903, 95% CI 0.679-1.201, p=0.485). Tenecteplase showed no significant difference in 3-month functional independence compared to alteplase in acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion undergoing bridging thrombolysis (OR 0.903).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: