Table 5.
Outcomes following bridging therapy in ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation.
| Study | Number of Patients (n) | Number of Patients with AF and AF Prevalence (%) | Study Design | Functional Outcomes | Mortality | sICH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loo et al. [131] | 705 | 314 (44.54%) | Retrospective | For patients with AF, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of favourable functional outcomes (90-day mRS ≤ 2) between those receiving bridging therapy compared to those treated with EVT alone (35.0% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.761). However, for patients without AF, the rate of favourable functional outcomes was significantly higher in those receiving bridging therapy compared to those treated with EVT alone (45.2% vs. 23.7%, p < 0.001). |
For patients with AF, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of mortality between those receiving bridging therapy compared to those treated with EVT alone (11.9% vs. 14.5%, p = 0.631). For patients without AF, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of mortality between those receiving bridging therapy compared to those treated with EVT alone (11.7% vs. 14.5, p = 0.559). |
For patients with AF, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of sICH between those receiving bridging therapy compared to those treated with EVT alone (11.0% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.323). For patients without AF, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of sICH between those receiving bridging therapy compared to those treated with EVT alone (12.8% vs. 13.9%, p = 0.765). |
| Akbik et al. [132] | 6461 | 2311 (35.77%) | Retrospective | In non-AF patients, treatment with bridging therapy was associated with a significantly increased likelihood of favourable functional outcomes (90-day mRS ≤ 2) compared to receiving EVT alone (aOR 1.29 [95% CI 1.03–1.60], p = 0.025). However, in AF patients, there was no significant association between bridging therapy and favourable functional outcomes (aOR 1.28 [95% CI 0.94–1.74], p = 0.11). |
Comparing AF patients treated with bridging therapy to AF patients treated with EVT alone, there was no significant difference in mortality (27.3% vs. 25.7%, p = 0.593). | There were significantly elevated odds of sICH or parenchymal haematoma type 2 in AF patients who were treated with bridging therapy compared to those treated with EVT alone (aOR 1.66 [95% CI 1.07–2.57], p = 0.024). |
| Mujanovic et al. [133] | 2941 | 1347 (45.80%) | Retrospective | Treatment with bridging therapy was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of favourable functional outcomes (90-day mRS ≤ 2) compared to EVT alone (aOR 1.61 [95% CI 1.24–2.11], p < 0.001). There was no significant association between AF and favourable functional outcomes following bridging therapy (aOR 0.98 [95% CI 0.66–1.46], p = 0.924). |
There was no significant difference in the likelihood of mortality between AF patients treated with bridging therapy compared to EVT alone (21.6% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.038). | There was no significant association between AF and sICH following bridging therapy (aOR 1.37 [95% CI 0.67–2.83], p = 0.390). |
Abbreviations: AF = atrial fibrillation, EVT = endovascular thrombectomy, sICH = symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage, aOR = adjusted odds ratio, CI = confidence interval, mRS = Modified Rankin Scale. Impact of atrial fibrillation on outcomes after bridging therapy.