SynthesisActa neurologica Belgica2026
Endovascular thrombectomy plus intravenous thrombolysis versus endovascular thrombectomy alone for large ischemic stroke.
Synthesis in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the gold standard for eligible acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO). A few trials studied EVT in AIS-LVO with large ischemic infarcts. We investigated the impact of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) on EVT outcomes in those patients.
methodsWe conducted a meta-analysis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and Interventions. We searched 4 databases and performed our analysis utilizing a pooled risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsThree studies investigated EVT with and without IVT in AIS-LVO patients with large ischemic infarcts. Regarding the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at 3 months, there was a statistically significant difference favoring EVT plus IVT (RR: 1.48, 95%CI: 1.27, 1.72, P < 0.00001). In respect of mRS score of 0-3, the analysis also favored EVT plus IVT (RR: 1.25, 95%CI: 1.11, 1.41, P = 0.0003). Regarding early neurological improvement (ENI) at 24 and 36 hours, our analysis favored EVT plus IVT (RR: 1.16, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.34, P = 0.03). In terms of mortality, our analysis favored EVT plus IVT (RR: 0.88, 95%CI: 0.77, 1, P = 0.04). There was no difference between the two groups across different types of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).
conclusionOur results showed a beneficial impact of IVT on the outcomes of EVT in AIS-LVO patients with large ischemic infarcts in terms of functional outcomes and ENI. IVT was also associated with a lower mortality rate but not with an increased risk of ICH. Larger studies are needed to corroborate such results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40402426What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.