LAUSR

Background The safety and efficacy of bridging therapy with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients with large core infarct has not been sufficiently studied. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety outcomes between patients who received IVT+MT and those treated with MT alone. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of the Stroke Thrombectomy Aneurysm Registry (STAR). Patients with Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) ≤5 treated with MT were included in this study. Patients were divided into two groups based on pre-treatment IVT (IVT, no IVT). Propensity score matched analysis were used to compare outcomes between groups. Results A total of 398 patients were included; 113 pairs were generated using propensity score matching analyses. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in the matched cohort. The rate of any intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) was similar between groups in both the full cohort (41.4% vs 42.3%, P=0.85) and matched cohort (38.55% vs 42.1%, P=0.593). Similarly, the rate of significant ICH was similar between the groups (full cohort: 13.1% vs 16.9%, P=0.306; matched cohort: 15.6% vs 18.95, P=0.52). There was no difference in favorable outcome (90-day modified Rankin Scale 0–2) or successful reperfusion between groups. In an adjusted analysis, IVT was not associated with any of the outcomes. Conclusion Pretreatment IVT was not associated with an increased risk of hemorrhage in patients with large core infarct treated with MT. Future studies are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of bridging therapy in patients with large core infarct.