Importance: Tenecteplase is an alternative to alteplase for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke given its simplified administration and comparable safety and efficacy. However, its impact on workflow metrics that may affect clinical outcomes, such as door-to-needle and door-in-door-out times, has not been well-characterized. Objective: To compare door-to-needle and door-in-door-out times between tenecteplase-treated and alteplase-treated patients with acute ischemic stroke in US hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2022. The analysis included adult patients with ischemic stroke who received intravenous thrombolysis. Data analysis was conducted from August to November 2023. Exposure: Tenecteplase or alteplase treatment in a consecutive series of patients with ischemic stroke. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were door-to-needle time among patients who arrived directly to the reporting hospital and door-in-door-out time among those transferred after thrombolytic administration. Secondary outcomes were door-to-puncture and other endovascular workflow metrics among patients treated with thrombectomy after thrombolysis. Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess the association between thrombolytic treatment and workflow time intervals outcomes. Results: Of 133 228 thrombolysis-treated patients (mean SD age, 68.3 14.8 years; 64 173 female 48.2%; median IQR National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 7 3-14), 13 988 (10.5%) received tenecteplase, and 119 240 (89.5%) received alteplase. The mean (SD) door-to-needle time was significantly shorter with tenecteplase vs alteplase (47.0 26.8 vs 52.7 28.0 minutes; adjusted mean difference, -3.13 minutes; 95% CI, -3.84 to -2.42 minutes). Door-to-needle time 30 minutes or less occurred more frequently with tenecteplase than with alteplase (2955 of 9893 patients 29.9% vs 14 781 of 72 539 patients 20.4%; adjusted odds ratio aOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.44), as did door-to-needle time 45 minutes or less (5766 of 9893 patients 58.3% vs 35 238 of 72 539 patients 48.6%; aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.32) and 60 minutes or less (7670 of 9893 patients 77.5% vs 51 282 of 72 539 patients 70.7%; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.33). Among transferred patients likely eligible for mechanical thrombectomy, mean (SD) door-in-door-out times were shorter for tenecteplase vs alteplase (108.3 31.6 vs 114.1 32.0 minutes; adjusted mean difference, -5.94 minutes; 95% CI, -9.10 to -2.77 minutes). Among patients receiving thrombectomy, shorter times were observed in the tenecteplase group for door-to-arterial puncture, door-to-device deployment, and door-to-reperfusion. Hospitals that transitioned to tenecteplase during the study period had faster door-to-needle time times after vs before the switch (mean SD, 51.1 12.1 vs 52.7 10.8 minutes; adjusted mean difference, -1.52 minutes; 95% CI, -2.88 to -0.15 minutes). Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of a large nationwide registry, tenecteplase was associated with faster door-to-needle and door-in-door-out times than alteplase. These workflow advantages provide support for broader use of tenecteplase for stroke thrombolysis.
Warach et al. (Mon,) studied this question.