SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
Comparison of tenecteplase vs. alteplase in addition to thrombectomy in patients with ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusion within 4.5 h: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The optimal reperfusion approach for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) remains under debate. While endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the standard treatment, the role of intravenous thrombolysis before EVT-particularly with alteplase or tenecteplase-remains under investigation. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of three strategies: EVT alone, alteplase with EVT, and tenecteplase with EVT. Methods: A comprehensive search of Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase was performed to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the above interventions in AIS patients with LVO treated within 4.5 h of symptom onset. A Bayesian NMA framework was used to estimate pooled effects. The primary endpoint was Proportion of patients achieving a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at 90 days. Secondary endpoints included mRS 0-1, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and 90-day mortality. Results: Seven RCTs involving 2,793 patients were included. Among them, 1,290 received EVT alone, 1,124 alteplase with EVT, and 379 tenecteplase with EVT. Tenecteplase with EVT was associated with a higher rate of functional independence (mRS 0-2) at 90 days versus EVT alone (OR: 1.52; 95% CrI: 1.00-2.36), with the lower bound of the credible interval at the null. Tenecteplase with EVT also numerically outperformed alteplase plus EVT (OR: 1.48; 95% CrI: 0.97-2.36), although this difference was not statistically significant. No significant differences were observed among treatments in achieving excellent outcome (mRS 0-1), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, or mortality. Tenecteplase plus EVT ranked highest in efficacy probability based on SUCRA values, but these rankings should be interpreted cautiously given the limited tenecteplase sample size and modest precision of the estimates. Conclusion: Tenecteplase with EVT may be associated with better 90-day functional outcomes than EVT alone and may offer advantages compared to alteplase with EVT for AIS patients with LVO treated within 4.5 h, without an observed excess risk of sICH or mortality. However, these findings are based on a small number of tenecteplase-treated patients and borderline credible intervals, so they should be interpreted cautiously and confirmed in larger, rigorously designed randomized trials. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier (CRD420251073350).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.