LAUSR

Background: The purpose of this study was to perform a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) versus bridging therapy of intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy (IVMT), comparing the efficacy and safety of the two in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods: All eligible RCT articles from database establishment to December 8, 2021 were searched in databases such as PubMed, Ovid, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library, etc. Efficacy outcomes were assessed by modified RANKIN scal (mRS) score, complete recanalization or reperfusion (TICI), National Institute of Health Stroke Scal (NIHSS) score, 90-day mortality, 24 to 36 h incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Results: Our study included 6 RCT involving 1717 patients. The proportion of the primary efficacy outcome (mRS score 0‐2 at 90 days) was significantly different between IVT and IVMT (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.35‐0.76). For the secondary efficacy outcome, the study found a significant difference in the proportion of TICI (pooled OR was 0.055, 95% CI 0.07‐0.33). There was a significant difference in the 24 h NIHSS score between the IVT group and the IVMT group (pooled MD was 3.25, 95% CI 0.80‐5.70). There were no significant differences in the NIHSS score at 90 days, the death rate at 90 days, and the sICH at 24 to 36 hours between the two groups. Conclusions: This study confirms that IVMT is more effective and safe than IVT alone in patients with AIS. However, more and higher-quality randomized clinical trials comparing IVMT to IV alone are warranted for validation.