Abstract
Background:
Tandem occlusions are a singular large vessel occlusion entity involving specific endovascular and perioperative antithrombotic management. In this context, data on safety and efficacy of prior intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with tenecteplase is scarce. We aimed to compare IVT with tenecteplase or alteplase in patients with acute tandem occlusions intended for endovascular treatment.
Patients and methods:
A retrospective pooled analysis of two large observational registries (ETIS (Endovascular Treatment of Ischemic Stroke) and TETRIS (Tenecteplase Treatment in Ischemic Stroke)) was performed on consecutive patients presenting with anterior circulation tandem occlusion treated with IVT using either alteplase (ETIS) or tenecteplase (TETRIS) followed by endovascular treatment between January 2015 and June 2022. Sensitivity analyses on atherosclerosis related tandem occlusions and on patient treated with emergent carotid stenting were conducted. Propensity score overlap weighting analyses were performed.
Results:
We analyzed 753 patients: 124 in the tenecteplase and 629 in the alteplase group. The overall odds of favorable outcome (3-month modified Rankin score 0–2) were comparable between both groups (49.4% vs 47.1%; OR = 1.10, 95%CI 0.85–1.41). Early recanalization, final successful recanalization and mortality favored the use of tenecteplase. The occurrence of any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) was more frequent after tenecteplase use (OR = 2.24; 95%CI 1.75–2.86). However, risks of symptomatic ICH and parenchymal hematoma remained similar. In atherosclerotic tandems, favorable outcome, mortality, parenchymal hematoma, early recanalization, and final successful recanalization favored the tenecteplase group. In the carotid stenting subgroup, PH were less frequent in the tenecteplase group (OR = 0.18; 95%CI 0.05–0.69).
Conclusion:
In patients with tandem occlusions, IVT with tenecteplase seemed reasonably safe in particular with increased early recanalization rates. These findings remain preliminary and should be further confirmed in randomized trials.
Keywords: Tandem, thrombectomy, intravenous thrombolysis, tenecteplase, alteplase
Graphical abstract.
Introduction
Among large-vessel occlusion strokes (LVOS), anterior circulation tandem occlusions remain a challenge in terms of acute phase management. If the benefit of reperfusion therapies including intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular treatment has already been established, several questions remain regarding the optimal approach in this setting.1,2 Indeed, tandem occlusions constitute a singular entity with specific features such as their bifocal occlusion pattern, their two main etiologies (internal carotid artery (ICA) atherosclerosis or dissection) and the possibility of an emergent carotid stenting, potentially combined with a single or even a more “aggressive” antiplatelet therapy.3–8
Over the last years, the benefit of IVT for LVOS intended for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) has been questioned through several randomized clinical trials.9–11 Overall, these studies did not demonstrate the non-inferiority of MT alone in comparison to bridging therapy (IVT followed by MT). 12 Consequently, international guidelines still recommend prior IVT before MT.12,13 In these trials, the evaluated thrombolytic agent was alteplase, a recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. More recently, tenecteplase, a genetically modified fibrin-specific variant of alteplase with longer half-life, has emerged as an interesting alternative with promising safety and efficacy reported in two major randomized trials. First, in the EXTEND-IA TNK trial comparing tenecteplase and alteplase in LVOS, tenecteplase use was associated with increased odds of early recanalization and improved clinical outcome. 14 Second in the AcT trial, which included non-selected acute ischemic strokes with or without large-vessel occlusion, tenecteplase was non-inferior to alteplase.15,16
Even though tenecteplase use is increasing, questions persist regarding its place in daily practice, especially in specific circumstances such as tandem occlusions. To date, little data is available comparing these two thrombolytic agents in tandem occlusions treated with endovascular approach. 17 Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase and alteplase in the setting of acute tandem occlusions intended for endovascular treatment.
Methods
The data supporting this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Study design and population
We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis of two large registries: ETIS (Endovascular Treatment of Ischemic Stroke), between January 2015 and June 2022, and TETRIS (Tenecteplase Treatment in Ischemic Stroke), between January 2015 and June 2021. Details regarding these registries have previously been published.18,19 Briefly, ETIS (NCT03776877) is an ongoing multicenter prospective observational study collecting data of consecutive patients with LVOS undergoing MT. Informed consent was obtained from patients or their relatives. TETRIS (NCT05534360) is a retrospective multicenter registry based on prospective local databases in five stroke centers, collecting consecutive patients receiving IVT with tenecteplase at the acute phase of an ischemic stroke. Patients were informed of their participation and offered the possibility to withdraw, in compliance with French law regarding retrospective studies of anonymized standard care data.
Inclusion criteria for the current study were: (1) tandem occlusion of the anterior circulation detected on initial imaging and confirmed during endovascular procedure; (2) receiving initial IVT with either alteplase or tenecteplase; (3) intended endovascular treatment. We excluded patients who did not receive IVT before endovascular treatment, with isolated cervical or isolated intracranial ICA occlusions and posterior circulation tandem occlusions.
Tandem occlusion was defined as an acute bifocal occlusion including an occlusion or near-occlusive stenosis of the cervical ICA along with a second distinct intracranial occlusion (intracranial ICA, M1, or M2 middle cerebral artery (MCA)). In both ETIS and TETRIS registries, cases of tandem occlusions were locally reviewed by a trained senior neuroradiologist or neurologist.
Treatment
Acute reperfusion therapies indications were locally decided, on a case-by-case basis, according to standard guidelines, patient status, local protocols, and multidisciplinary discussion. IVT was administered according to usual recommendations, in the absence of contraindication, immediately after initial imaging. Among participating centers, available thrombolytic agent was either alteplase (ETIS) or tenecteplase (TETRIS). Alteplase was administered at a dose of 0.9 mg/kg (maximum 90 mg), 10% of which as an intravenous bolus followed by a 1-h infusion. Tenecteplase was given in a single 0.25 mg/kg (maximum 25 mg) intravenous bolus.
Endovascular procedure was performed under general anesthesia, conscious sedation, or local anesthesia only according to patient condition, local protocol, and anticipated difficulty of MT. Endovascular strategy was left to the discretion of the interventionist. In particular, decision to perform carotid stenting was taken by the operator according to several criteria: cervical lesion etiology; intracranial recanalization status after MT; prior IVT; circle of Willis functionality; and local protocol. Intraoperative antithrombotic therapy such as intravenous aspirin, GpIIbIIIa inhibitor, cangrelor, or heparin could also be used according to local habits and intra-operative angiographic features.
Collected data, definitions, and outcomes
Baseline patient, imaging, and timeframe data along with therapeutic, procedural, and etiologic characteristics were collected. Angiographic and imaging data were locally assessed by senior neuroradiologists. Three-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were collected by certified investigators during routinely scheduled visits or by trained research nurses during a standardized telephone interview. Baseline, angiographic and day-1 imaging data were locally assessed by experienced neuroradiologists or neurologists.
Primary outcome was favorable outcome at 3 months, defined by a mRS ⩽ 2 or equal to pre-stroke mRS. Excellent outcome was defined by a 3-month mRS ⩽ 1. Early neurological improvement was defined by NIHSS of 0 or 1 at day-1 or a diminution of at least four points between admission and day 1. Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) was evaluated on day-1 imaging according to the ECASS-III classification. Any ICH described ICH of all types detected in systematic day-1 imaging, either symptomatic or not. Symptomatic ICH (sICH) was defined as any intracranial hemorrhages on the 24-h imaging associated with an increase of four points or more on the NIHSS within 24 h attributable to the ICH. Parenchymal hematoma (PH) occurrence was also investigated. Variation of ASPECTS between initial imaging and day-1 was collected to explore infarct extension. Intracranial and cervical arterial patency were also assessed on day-1 imaging. Intracranial patency at day-1 aimed to assess the patency of initially occluded intracranial proximal artery. Procedural outcomes were successful recanalization (defined by final modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2b, 2c or 3), excellent recanalization (final mTICI 2c-3), early recanalization (defined as mTICI 2b, 2c or three on the initial intracranial angiographic run, before any MT maneuver), number of MT passes and procedural complication (including embolus in a new territory, perforation, severe vasospasm, or other).
Statistical analysis
Quantitative variables were expressed as means (standard deviation, SD) in the case of normal distribution or medians (interquartile range) otherwise. Categorical variables were expressed as numbers (percentage). Normality of distributions was assessed using histograms and the Shapiro-Wilk test. Patients were divided into two groups according to the IVT agent (alteplase or tenecteplase).
Patient’s characteristics were described according the study groups and the magnitude of the between-group differences were assessed by calculating the absolute standardized differences; an absolute standardized difference >10% was interpreted as a meaningful difference.
We estimated the effect size of tenecteplase against alteplase (considered as reference group) on main angiographic and clinical outcomes before and after taking account of the potential confounding factors using propensity score (PS) overlap weighting (PSOW) method (2). The PS was estimated using a non-parsimonious multivariable logistic regression model, with the study group as the dependent variable and all of the characteristics listed in Table 1 as covariates.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics according to the thrombolytic used before thrombectomy in the overall study population.
| Characteristic | Unadjusted sample |
Overlap weighted sample |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alteplase (n = 629) | Tenecteplase (n = 124) | ASD, % | Alteplase (n = 629) | Tenecteplase (n = 124) | |
| Age, mean (SD) | 64.6 (14.0) | 67.8 (11.9) | 22.1 | 66.8 (13.0) | 66.8 (13.0) |
| Men | 460 (73.1) | 76 (61.3) | 25.4 | 404 (64.2) | 80 (64.2) |
| Direct admission to CSC | 187 (29.7) | 35 (28.2) | 3.2 | 175 (27.9) | 35 (27.9) |
| Unknow onset time | 153 (24.4) | 16 (12.9) | 29.9 | 93 (14.8) | 18 (14.8) |
| Medical history | |||||
| History of hypertension | 313 (49.7) | 67 (54.2) | 9.0 | 337 (53.6) | 66 (53.6) |
| Diabetes melitus | 87 (13.9) | 14 (11.3) | 7.9 | 77 (12.2) | 15 (12.2) |
| Current smoking | 177 (28.2) | 40 (32.4) | 9.2 | 203 (32.2) | 40 (32.2) |
| History of previous stroke | 44 (7.0) | 13 (10.5) | 12.4 | 60 (9.6) | 12 (9.6) |
| Pre-stroke antiplatelet medication | 121 (19.2) | 22 (17.7) | 3.8 | 116 (18.4) | 23 (18.4) |
| Pre-stroke anticoagulant medication | 38 (6.0) | 7 (5.6) | 2.5 | 31 (5.0) | 6 (5.0) |
| Admission systolic blood pressure, mean (SD) | 149 (33) | 145 (31) | 12.9 | 146 (26.3) | 146 (26.3) |
| Admission NIHSS score, median [IQR] | 16 [11–20] | 15 [9–19] | 16.4 | 15 (10–19) | 15 (10–19) |
| Admission ASPECTS, median [IQR] | 8 [6–9] | 7 [6–9] | 5.6 | 7 (6–9) | 7 (6–9) |
| Pre-stroke mRS > 1 | 33 (5.2) | 10 (8.3) | 12.3 | 50 (7.9) | 10 (7.9) |
| Intracranial occlusion site | |||||
| Intracranial ICA | 171 (27.2) | 43 (34.7) | 31.7 | 206 (32.8) | 41 (32.8) |
| M1 MCA | 361 (57.4) | 55 (44.4) | 305 (48.5) | 60 (48.5) | |
| M2 MCA | 92 (14.7) | 22 (17.7) | 109 (17.3) | 21 (17.3) | |
| Others ,* | 4 (0.7) | 4 (3.2) | 9 (1.4) | 2 (1.4) | |
| Stroke etiology | |||||
| Large artery atherosclerosis | 342 (54.3) | 58 (46.4) | 16.5 | 137 (21.8) | 27 (21.8) |
| Dissection | 134 (21.3) | 28 (22.7) | 315 (50.0) | 62 (50.0) | |
| Others ** | 154 (24.4) | 38 (30.9) | 177 (28.2) | 35 (28.2) | |
| Thrombectomy performed *** | 581 (92.4) | 104 (93.9) | 4.9 | 582 (92.6) | 85 (85.0) |
| Process times, min, median [IQR] | |||||
| Onset to IVT **** | 150 [125–195] | 160 [120–200] | 3.2 | 150 (125–195) | 160 (120–200) |
| Onset to imaging | 117 [91–153] | 112 [84–163] | 6.0 | 115 (90–152) | 115 (90–152) |
| Imaging to IVT | 40 [28–60] | 40 [23–70] | 5.6 | 40 (27–59) | 40 (27–59) |
ASPECTS: Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score; CSC: comprehensive stroke center; EVT: endovascular treatment; IQR: interquartile range; IVT: intravenous thrombolysis; mRS: modified Rankin Scale; NIHSS: National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; SD: standard deviation. Propensity score was calculated with all parameters in this Table 1.
Values are expressed as number (%) unless otherwise indicated. Values were calculated after handing missing data using multiple imputation procedure. Propensity score was calculated with all parameters in this Table.
Others included posterior cerebral artery and M3.
Cardio-embolic, unidentified, unknown, or missing data.
Defined by at least one intracranial mechanical thrombectomy pass performed.
Not included in propensity score.
Because of missing data in patient characteristics and outcomes, we estimated the effect size of tenecteplase versus alteplase in PSOW adjusted analyses after handling missing covariates values by multiple imputation (4) using a regression switching approach (chained equations with m = 10 (5)). Imputation procedure was performed under the missing at random assumption using all variables listed in Table 1 and all outcomes with a predictive mean matching method for quantitative variables and multinomial or binary logistic regression model for categorical variables. In each imputed dataset, PS were calculated to provide PSOW-adjusted effect sizes. We therefore combined these adjusted effect sizes from each imputed dataset using Rubin’s rules (6).
The PSOW- adjusted effect sizes of tenecteplase versus alteplase were estimated using weighted logistic regression models for binary outcomes and using weighted linear regression models for quantitative outcomes. Using alteplase group as reference, we derived from these regression models odds ratio (ORs) or mean differences as treatment effect size measures, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Regarding the difference in any ICH between the two group, we performed a subgroup analysis according to the type of 24-h cerebral imaging (MRI vs CT) by including into the weighted logistic regression model, the study group, the type of imaging, and the corresponding interaction term. Comparison in the overall distribution of mRS was performed using a weighted ordinal logistic regression model (shift). Common odds ratio (cOR) for 1-point improvement in mRS was derived from this model as effects size. Our main analysis covered the whole study group. In order to investigate typical presentation (atherosclerosis) and specific treatment strategies (emergent carotid stenting) of tandem occlusions, sensitivity analyses restricted to patients with atherosclerosis as tandem occlusion etiology and restricted to patients with emergent cervical carotid stenting during the endovascular procedure were done by using the same methodology described for the whole study group. Statistical testing was conducted at the two-tailed α-level of 0.05. Data were analyzed using the SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
Results
Study population and treatment description
During the study period, 629 patients with tandem occlusions treated with alteplase and 124 with tenecteplase prior to endovascular treatment were consecutively enrolled in the ETIS and TETRIS registries. Among them, large artery atherosclerosis was the identified etiology in 400 patients (342[85.5%] in the alteplase and 58[14.5%] in the tenecteplase group), and 256 patients were treated with cervical stenting (209[81.6%] in the alteplase and 47[18.6%] in the tenecteplase groups) constituting the secondary analysis populations.
Baseline characteristics after handling missing values by multiple imputation in the overall study population according to the thrombolytic used are described in Table 1 (see Supplemental Table 1 for those before handling missing values). Although several meaningful differences were observed, the two study groups prior to PSOW were well balanced for most patient characteristics.
Regarding treatment strategy, patient workflow and cervical ICA stenting were globally comparable between both groups. However, patients in the tenecteplase group were less often treated under general anesthesia and received more frequently intraoperative heparin and aspirin (Supplemental Tables 1 and 2). Intraoperative “aggressive” antiplatelet therapy (including intravenous GpIIbIIIa inhibitors or cangrelor or oral clopidogrel or ticagrelor) was comparable between both groups. Median symptoms onset to IVT times were comparable in the alteplase (150 min [IQR 125–195]) and tenecteplase (160 min [120–200]) groups.
Outcomes and IVT agents in main analysis population
In the main population analysis, after PSOW, no significant difference was found regarding the primary endpoint: the odds of 3-month favorable outcome were similar in alteplase and tenecteplase groups (47.1% vs 49.4%; OR 1.10; 95%CI 0.85–1.41; p = 0.48; Table 2 and Figure 1(a)). Similarly, no difference was found regarding excellent outcome. However, patients treated with tenecteplase had a lower risk of 3-month mortality (OR 0.59; 95%CI 0.40–0.87). Also, patients treated with tenecteplase had higher chances of early recanalization (OR 4.21; 95%CI 2.69–6.61), final excellent recanalization after MT (OR 1.42; 95%CI 1.13–1.78) and intracranial artery patency at day-1 (OR 2.31; 95%CI 1.43–3.72). However, the occurrence of any ICH was higher in the tenecteplase group (OR 2.24; 95%CI 1.75–2.86). In a subgroup analysis according to the type of day-1 cerebral imaging (MRI vs CT), the difference in any ICH in disfavor of IV tenecteplase were only observed in patients selected on MRI-imaging (OR 2.79; 95%CI 1.94–4.03; p-het = 0.005; Supplemental Table 3). No difference was found in sICH and PH occurrence according to the thrombolytic agent. The odds of cervical ICA patency at day-1 were comparable between both groups. Procedural complications occurred less frequently in the tenecteplase group (OR 0.34; 95%CI 0.17–0.68). This was mostly driven by embolus in new territories which occurred in 36 patients in the alteplase group compared to three in the tenecteplase group.
Table 2.
Propensity-score overlap weighting effect size of IV tenecteplase against IV alteplase before intention to treat thrombectomy in all patients with tandem occlusion.
| Characteristic | Alteplase (n = 629) | Tenecteplase (n = 124) | Effect size (95%CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical outcomes | ||||
| Favorable outcome 1 | 296 (47.1) | 61 (49.4) | 1.10 (0.85–1.41) | 0.48 |
| Excellent outcome 2 | 195 (31.0) | 33 (26.8) | 0.81 (0.62–1.06) | 0.13 |
| Three-month mortality | 114 (18.1) | 14 (11.5) | 0.59 (0.40–0.87) | 0.008 |
| Hemorrhagic transformation | ||||
| Any ICH | 295 (46.9) | 82 (66.4) | 2.24 (1.75–2.86) | <0.001 |
| PH | 88 (14.0) | 14 (11.5) | 0.78 (0.55–1.09) | 0.15 |
| sICH | 69 (10.9) | 14 (11.5) | 1.06 (0.75–1.51) | 0.74 |
| Day-1 outcomes | ||||
| Early neurological improvement | 262 (41.6) | 56 (45.4) | 1.16 (0.92–1.47) | 0.20 |
| ASPECTS shift, mean (95%CI) 3 | –0.88 (–1.13–0.63) | –1.04 (–1.38–0.69) | –0.16 (–0.59–0.27) | 0.46 |
| Intracranial patency | 535 (85.1) | 115 (92.9) | 2.31 (1.43–3.72) | 0.001 |
| Cervical ICA patency | 441 (70.1) | 82 (66.3) | 0.84 (0.63–1.13) | 0.24 |
| Procedural outcomes | ||||
| Early intracranial recanalization | 22 (3.5) | 16 (13.1) | 4.21 (2.69–6.61) | <0.001 |
| Final mTICI 2b-3 | 513 (81.6) | 101 (81.5) | 0.99 (0.77–1.29) | 0.97 |
| Final mTICI 2c-3 | 320 (50.8) | 74 (59.5) | 1.42 (1.13–1.78) | 0.002 |
| Number of passes >3 4 | 123 (19.6) | 22 (18.0) | 0.89 (0.65–1.22) | 0.48 |
| Procedural complications 5 | 59 (9.4) | 4 (3.5) | 0.34 (0.17–0.68) | 0.004 |
ASPECTS: Alberta stroke program early CT score; CI: confidence intervals; ICH: intracerebral hemorrhage; IPTW: inverse probability of treatment weighting; IQR: interquartile range; IVT: intravenous thrombolysis; mRS: modified Rankin scale; mTICI: modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction; NIHSS: National institutes of health stroke scale; PH: parenchymal hemorrhage (type 1 and 2); sICH: symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage.
Values n (%) are estimated in PSOW cohort unless otherwise indicated.
Pre-specified primary outcome defined as a 3-month mRS score ⩽2, or equal to pre-stroke mRS score.
Defined as a 3-month mRS score ⩽1, or equal to pre-stroke mRS score.
Baseline-adjusted mean difference.
Calculated after PSOW on patients who underwent thrombectomy (581 in the alteplase and 104 in the tenecteplase group). Descriptive parameters and effect sizes (odds ratio or mean difference) were calculated after handling missing values for variables included in the propensity score using multiple imputations.
Detailed procedural complications: embolus in a new territory (alteplase group: n = 36; tenecteplase group: n = 3); intracranial arterial perforation (alteplase group: n = 21; tenecteplase group: n = 1); severe vasospasm (alteplase group: n = 2; tenecteplase: n = 0).
Figure 1.
Propensity-score overlap weighting effect size of IV tenecteplase against IV alteplase before intention to treat thrombectomy on distribution of 3-month modified Rankin Scale. (a) Main analysis population: cOR = 1.06 (95%CI, 0.84−1.35), p = 0.59. (b) Patients with large artery atherosclerosis: cOR = 1.32 (95%CI, 0.98−1.79), p = 0.069. (c) Patients treated with cervical stenting: cOR = 0.79 (95%CI, 0.53−1.18), p = 0.25. Rates are estimated in PSOW cohort. Common odds ratios (cOR) were calculated for one-point improvement using a weighted ordinal logistic regression model.
Outcomes and IVT agents in secondary analysis population
Baseline characteristics in the two sensitivity analysis populations are detailed in Supplemental Table 2.
In the sensitivity analysis restricted to patients with an atherosclerotic etiology (Table 3, Figure 1(b)), we found a significant association favoring tenecteplase for the following outcomes: favorable functional outcome (OR 1.86; 95%CI 1.26–2.74), mortality (OR 0.42; 95%CI 0.23–0.80), early intracranial recanalization (OR 5.53; 95%CI 2.93–10.4), excellent final recanalization (OR 1.80; 95%CI 1.20–2.70), parenchymal hemorrhage (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.33–0.94), day-1 intracranial patency (OR 2.55; 95%CI 1.12–5.83) and early neurological improvement (OR 1.77; 95%CI 1.28–2.44). However, the rate of any ICH was higher in the tenecteplase group (OR 1.39; 95%CI 1.02–1.89). The odds of final intracranial favorable recanalization, number of total passes >3 and cervical ICA patency at day-1 were similar between groups.
Table 3.
Propensity-score overlap weighting effect size of IV tenecteplase against IV alteplase before intention to treat thrombectomy in patients with large artery atherosclerosis etiology.
| Characteristic | Alteplase (n = 315) | Tenecteplase (n = 57) | Effect size (95%CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical outcomes | ||||
| Favorable outcome 1 | 145 (46.0) | 35 (61.3) | 1.86 (1.26–2.74) | <0.001 |
| Excellent outcome 2 | 105 (33.2) | 19 (32.6) | 0.97 (0.68–1.39) | 0.88 |
| Three-month mortality | 52 (16.5) | 4 (7.8) | 0.42 (0.23–0.80) | 0.009 |
| Hemorrhagic transformation | ||||
| Any ICH | 151 (47.8) | 32 (55.9) | 1.39 (1.02–1.89) | 0.036 |
| PH | 40 (12.6) | 4 (7.4) | 0.56 (0.33–0.94) | 0.030 |
| sICH | 33 (10.4) | 4 (6.4) | 0.58 (0.31–1.09) | 0.092 |
| Day-1 outcomes | ||||
| Early neurological improvement | 127 (40.4) | 31 (54.5) | 1.77 (1.28–2.44) | <0.001 |
| ASPECTS shift, mean (95%CI) 3 | −0.90 (−1.25−0.54) | −0.85 (−1.38−0.32) | 0.05 (−0.54−0.64) | 0.873 |
| Intracranial patency | 266 (84.4) | 53 (93.1) | 2.55 (1.12–5.83) | 0.028 |
| Cervical ICA patency | 230 (72.9) | 44 (77.6) | 1.29 (0.89–1.87) | 0.18 |
| Procedural outcomes | ||||
| Early intracranial recanalization | 11 (3.6) | 10 (17.1) | 5.53 (2.93–10.4) | <0.001 |
| Final mTICI 2b-3 | 262 (83.2) | 48 (84.6) | 1.11 (0.71–1.72) | 0.65 |
| Final mTICI 2c-3 | 162 (51.4) | 37 (65.5) | 1.80 (1.20–2.70) | 0.005 |
| Number of passes >3 4 | 51 (16.1) | 7 (12.1) | 0.89 (0.65–1.22) | 0.48 |
| Procedural complications 5 | 32 (10.0) | 1 (1.4) | NA | NA |
ASPECTS: Alberta stroke program early CT score; CI: confidence intervals; ICH: intracerebral hemorrhage; IPTW: inverse probability of treatment weighting; IQR: interquartile range; IVT: intravenous thrombolysis; mRS: modified Rankin Scale; mTICI: modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction; NIHSS: National institutes of health stroke scale; PH: parenchymal hemorrhage (type 1 and 2); sICH: symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Values n (%) are estimated in PSOW cohort unless otherwise indicated.
Pre-specified primary outcome defined as a 3-month mRS score ⩽2, or equal to pre-stroke mRS score.
Defined as a 3-month mRS score ⩽1, or equal to pre-stroke mRS score.
Baseline-adjusted mean difference.
Calculated after PSOW on patients who underwent thrombectomy. Descriptive parameters and effect sizes (odds ratio or mean difference) were calculated after handling missing values for variables included in the propensity score using multiple imputations.
Detailed procedural complications: embolus in a new territory (alteplase group: n = 20; tenecteplase group: n = 1); intracranial arterial perforation (alteplase group: n = 12; tenecteplase group: n = 0).
Among patients who were treated with emergent cervical carotid stenting during the initial endovascular procedure Table 4, Figure 1(c)), we observed comparable results regarding favorable outcome (OR 0.95; 95%CI 0.61–1.49) and mortality (OR 0.72; 95%CI 0.35–1.49). Early recanalization (OR 7.06; 95%CI 2.26–21.8), PH (OR 0.18; 95%CI 0.05–0.69) occurrence and delta in day-1 ASPECTS (OR 0.30; 95%CI −0.28–0.88) favored the tenecteplase group. However, day-1 cervical ICA patency was less frequent in the tenecteplase group (OR 0.48; 95%CI 0.25–0.94).
Table 4.
Propensity-score overlap weighting effect size of IV tenecteplase against IV alteplase before intention to treat thrombectomy in patients with cervical stenting.
| Characteristic | Alteplase (n = 209) | Tenecteplase (n = 47) | Effect size (95%CI) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical outcomes | ||||
| Favorable outcome 1 | 103 (49.2) | 23 (48.0) | 0.95 (0.61–1.49) | 0.82 |
| Excellent outcome 2 | 76 (36.3) | 12 (24.9) | 0.58 (0.34–1.01) | 0.052 |
| Three-month mortality | 36 (17.3) | 6 (13.2) | 0.72 (0.35–1.49) | 0.37 |
| Hemorrhagic transformation | ||||
| Any ICH | 105 (50.2) | 27 (57.4) | 1.33 (0.78–2.25) | 0.28 |
| PH | 27 (13.1) | 1 (2.9) | 0.18 (0.05–0.69) | 0.013 |
| sICH | 21 (10.0) | 6 (12.3) | 1.26 (0.70–2.27) | 0.45 |
| Day-1 outcomes | ||||
| Early neurological improvement | 80 (38.2) | 22 (46.3) | 1.39 (0.93–2.10) | 0.11 |
| ASPECTS shift, mean (95%CI) 3 | −0.98 (0.20−1.37) | −0.68 (−1.15−0.21) | 0.30 (−0.28–0.88) | 0.005 |
| Intracranial patency | 187 (89.4) | 45 (95.5) | 2.98 (0.45–19.51) | 0.24 |
| Cervical ICA patency | 171 (81.6) | 32 (68.3) | 0.48 (0.25–0.94) | 0.033 |
| Procedural outcomes | ||||
| Early intracranial recanalization | 3 (1.5) | 4 (9.5) | 7.06 (2.28–21.8) | 0.001 |
| Final mTICI 2b-3 | 187 (89.6) | 40 (85.6) | 0.69 (0.38–1.27) | 0.23 |
| Final mTICI 2c-3 | 129 (61.6) | 30 (63.8) | 1.09 (0.67–1.79) | 0.72 |
| Number of passes >3 4 | 33 (15.6) | 7 (15.8) | 1.01 (0.52–1.95) | 0.98 |
| Procedural complications 5 | 18 (8.5) | 3 (5.7) | 0.61 (0.18–2.02) | 0.40 |
ASPECTS: Alberta stroke program early CT score; CI: confidence intervals; ICH: intracerebral hemorrhage; IPTW: inverse probability of treatment weighting; IQR: interquartile range; IVT: intravenous thrombolysis; mRS: modified Rankin scale; mTICI: modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction; NIHSS: National institutes of health stroke scale; PH: parenchymal hemorrhage (type 1 and 2); sICH: symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage.
Values n (%) are estimated in PSOW cohort unless otherwise indicated.
Pre-specified primary outcome defined as a 3-month mRS score ⩽2, or equal to pre-stroke mRS score.
Defined as a 3-month mRS score ⩽1, or equal to pre-stroke mRS score.
Baseline-adjusted mean difference.
Calculated after PSOW on patients who underwent thrombectomy. Descriptive parameters and effect sizes (odds ratio or mean difference) were calculated after handling missing values for variables included in the propensity score using multiple imputations.
Detailed procedural complications: embolus in a new territory (alteplase group: n = 14; tenecteplase group: n = 0); intracranial arterial perforation (alteplase group: n = 2; tenecteplase group: n = 2); severe vasospasm (alteplase group: n = 2; tenecteplase: n = 1).
Discussion
In this multicenter retrospective pooled analysis of two large French registries, we found novel evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of prior IVT with tenecteplase compared to alteplase for acute tandem occlusions intended for MT. In the main analysis, despite similar 3-month functional outcomes, tenecteplase was associated with lower mortality, higher odds of early recanalization, final excellent recanalization, and ICH although both groups did not differ in terms of sICH and PH. In the sensitivity analysis restricted to atherosclerotic tandem occlusions, tenecteplase use was associated with improved functional outcome, lower mortality and PH rates and higher chances of early recanalization, final excellent recanalization and early neurological improvement. Among patients with emergent carotid stenting, despite comparable functional outcomes, PH were rarer in the tenecteplase group.
Our results are in line with those of the EXTEND-IA TNK trial, which reported increased rates of early recanalization and improved clinical outcomes with tenecteplase in LVOS intended for MT. 14 However, this trial included only few patients with tandem occlusions (10 patients treated with tenecteplase and 12 with alteplase) limiting its interpretation in this setting. To date, no specific data from the AcT trial regarding tandem occlusion were presented. 16 Hence, for less common LVOS subtypes such as tandem occlusions, data from large observational real-life registries remain essential. In this sense, our results are novel and bring new lights on the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase for this specific LVOS pattern. Interestingly, as reported in previous tenecteplase studies, we also observed significantly higher odds of early intracranial recanalization in the tenecteplase group despite higher thrombus burden and regularly feared limited efficacy of IVT in tandem occlusions. 2 Clinical outcomes also tended to favor tenecteplase with a lower mortality rate in the primary analysis. However, odds of favorable functional outcome were similar and there was no difference in the mRS shift analysis. Still, higher rates of favorable outcome, early neurological improvements and decreased mortality rate were found among the atherosclerotic tandem subpopulation. Mortality rates were consistently reduced in the tenecteplase group in the primary analysis and in the secondary analysis focused on atherosclerotic tandems. This might be related to a direct benefit of tenecteplase itself compared to alteplase (increased odds of early recanalization and excellent final recanalization along with comparable risk of sICH and PH). However, our results should be interpreted with caution as our study was retrospective and potentially subject to selection bias. Overall, while tenecteplase appears at least as effective and safe as alteplase in tandem occlusions, its possible superiority over alteplase should be investigated through dedicated randomized trials.
Along with achieving intracranial recanalization, the other main question dealing with tandem occlusion is the treatment of the cervical ICA. Despite ongoing trials (TITAN, ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT03978988; PICASSO, NCT05611242 and START, NCT05902000), emergent carotid stenting is already widely performed, especially in cases of atherosclerotic etiology.3,8,20,21 However, endovascular treatment potentially implies additional antithrombotic medication, especially single or even “aggressive” antiplatelet therapies.5–7 In this context, additional antithrombotic treatment to maintain intracranial and cervical arterial patency must always be balanced with the ICH risk. With patients receiving tenecteplase being excluded from ongoing tandem occlusion RCTs, the need for additional data is substantial. 20 Regarding the ICH risk associated with prior tenecteplase in tandem occlusions, we report novel and reassuring findings. First, we found increased odds of any ICH among patients treated with tenecteplase both in the main population and in the atherosclerotic tandem occlusion subgroup. Several hypotheses could explain this finding: (i) it could be specifically due to tenecteplase, although there are little data available on asymptomatic ICH risk after tenecteplase; (ii) it could be linked to the more frequent use of intraprocedural aspirin and heparin in the tenecteplase group (Supplemental Tables 1 and 2), which have been shown in the MR-CLEAN-MED trial to increase the ICH risk 22 ; (iii) differences in early post-operative antithrombotic therapies could have been confounding factors. These data were not collected in our registries. However, the absence of detected difference in terms of ICH risk in the stented subpopulation, who is particularly prone to receive early additional antithrombotic, renders this hypothesis less plausible. Still, increased rates of any ICH should be tempered by reassuring data regarding sICH and PH. Indeed, among both primary and sensitivity analyses, these safety outcomes were comparable between both groups. We even observed lower PH rates in the tenecteplase group in the atherosclerotic and stented subpopulations. While these findings could support a reasonably safe use of tenecteplase in tandem occlusions, considering the increased odds of any ICH, we still strongly recommend to cautiously discuss the use of additional antithrombotic agents on a case-by-case basis and after taking into account the entire clinical and imaging features.
Durable cervical ICA patency is also primordial in tandem occlusion, as early reocclusion has already been proven associated with worse clinical prognosis.23–25 Our study did not reveal an influence of tenecteplase on day-1 cervical ICA patency. Given its pharmacological properties and on the basis of our results, it is likely that tenecteplase does not directly provide an increased likelihood of durable ICA patency, either with or without carotid stenting. However, given the safety features discussed above, there might be an interest of prior tenecteplase in case of emergent ICA stenting combined with antiplatelet therapy.
We also observed significantly higher rates of procedural complications in the alteplase group. This finding was relatively unexpected. Most of these were embolus in new territories, which were less frequent with tenecteplase. Several hypotheses can be discussed. First, tandem occlusions have already been reported to be associated with specifically increased procedural risk in comparison with other types of LVOS. 26 There might be an effect related to local endovascular and pharmacological protocols and experience among the centers involved in these two registries. Still, procedural complication rates remained in line with published data. 26 Second, there might be a potential implication of each thrombolytic in their ability to recanalize migrated distal thrombus fragments occurring during retrieving maneuvers of MT. These questions should be specifically explored through dedicated study.
Our work presented several limitations. Although data were prospectively collected in two multicenter registries, our study was retrospective with known limitations inherent to its non-randomized design. Potential confounding by measured or unmeasured variables cannot be ruled out, even after PS adjustment methods and may have influenced our results. Missing data in some covariates, which were used in the PS calculation, represented another limitation. Although we used multiple imputations to handle missing data, we cannot exclude that they could introduce a bias in estimates. Then, despite harmonization in methodology and variable definitions, residual differences between both registries might have introduced bias. Given the rarity of tandem occlusions, our study population size was limited, which affected the statistical power of our analyses. While imaging was systematically locally reviewed by trained neuroradiologists and neurologists, it was not centralized, which could have affected tandem occlusion identification and etiological assessment. Also, since acute tandem occlusion management remains imperfectly codified, it can result in different endovascular strategy and antithrombotic medications during the procedure and the early postoperative phase. 27 Importantly, our study may underestimate early recanalization rates with alteplase, as per inclusion criteria a number of patients experiencing early intracranial recanalization and clinical improvement after IVT and before admission in the MT-capable center were not included in the ETIS registry. Finally, emergent carotid stenting rates in our cohort were relatively low and might reflect selection bias.
Conclusion
In our study, in tandem occlusions intended for MT, tenecteplase was associated with similar 3-month functional outcome but lower mortality rates and higher chances of early intracranial recanalization than alteplase. Despite increased odds of any ICH after tenecteplase, sICH and PH occurrence remained comparable with both thrombolytics. In atherosclerotic tandem occlusions, functional outcome, mortality, early neurological improvement, early recanalization, and PH favored tenecteplase. Among patients with emergent carotid stenting, PH were rarer in the tenecteplase group. Overall, our study revealed reasonable safety and efficacy features of tenecteplase in comparison to alteplase in the setting of tandem occlusions. Randomized trials should be considered to confirm these encouraging findings.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-eso-10.1177_23969873231206894 for Intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase versus alteplase combined with endovascular treatment of anterior circulation tandem occlusions: A pooled analysis of ETIS and TETRIS by Gaultier Marnat, Bertrand Lapergue, Benjamin Gory, Maeva Kyheng, Julien Labreuche, Guillaume Turc, Stephanze Olindo, Igor Sibon, Jildaz Caroff, Didier Smadja, Nicolas Chausson, Frederic Clarençon, Pierre Seners, Romain Bourcier, Raoul Pop, Jean-Marc Olivot, Mikael Mazighi, Solène Moulin, Kevin Janot, Christophe Cognard, Sonia Alamowitch and Gaspard Gerschenfeld in European Stroke Journal
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-eso-10.1177_23969873231206894 for Intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase versus alteplase combined with endovascular treatment of anterior circulation tandem occlusions: A pooled analysis of ETIS and TETRIS by Gaultier Marnat, Bertrand Lapergue, Benjamin Gory, Maeva Kyheng, Julien Labreuche, Guillaume Turc, Stephanze Olindo, Igor Sibon, Jildaz Caroff, Didier Smadja, Nicolas Chausson, Frederic Clarençon, Pierre Seners, Romain Bourcier, Raoul Pop, Jean-Marc Olivot, Mikael Mazighi, Solène Moulin, Kevin Janot, Christophe Cognard, Sonia Alamowitch and Gaspard Gerschenfeld in European Stroke Journal
Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-eso-10.1177_23969873231206894 for Intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase versus alteplase combined with endovascular treatment of anterior circulation tandem occlusions: A pooled analysis of ETIS and TETRIS by Gaultier Marnat, Bertrand Lapergue, Benjamin Gory, Maeva Kyheng, Julien Labreuche, Guillaume Turc, Stephanze Olindo, Igor Sibon, Jildaz Caroff, Didier Smadja, Nicolas Chausson, Frederic Clarençon, Pierre Seners, Romain Bourcier, Raoul Pop, Jean-Marc Olivot, Mikael Mazighi, Solène Moulin, Kevin Janot, Christophe Cognard, Sonia Alamowitch and Gaspard Gerschenfeld in European Stroke Journal
Footnotes
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval: Local ethics committee approval was obtained (IDRCB number: 2017-A03457-46).
Informed consent: Patients were informed of their participation and offered the possibility to withdraw, in compliance with French law regarding retrospective studies of anonymized standard care data.
Guarantor: GM is the guarantor for the present study.
Contributorship statement: GM and GG researched literature, conceived the study. GM, BL, SA and GG were involved in protocol development, gaining ethical approval and patient recruitment. MK and JL were involved in data and statistical analysis. GM wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors collected data and reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.
ORCID iDs: Gaultier Marnat 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7611-7753
Guillaume Turc
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5059-4095
Solène Moulin
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3916-6270
Christophe Cognard
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4287-2627
Sonia Alamowitch
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0074-3520
Gaspard Gerschenfeld
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2456-704X
Supplemental material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
- 1. Goyal M, Menon BK, van Zwam WH, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Lancet 2016; 387: 1723–1731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Anadani M, Marnat G, Consoli A, et al. Endovascular therapy with or without intravenous thrombolysis in acute stroke with tandem occlusion. J Neurointerv Surg 2022; 14: 314–320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Anadani M, Marnat G, Consoli A, et al. Endovascular therapy of anterior circulation tandem occlusions: pooled analysis from the TITAN and ETIS registries. Stroke 2021; 52: 3097–3105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Jadhav AP, Zaidat OO, Liebeskind DS, et al. Emergent management of tandem lesions in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2019; 50: 428–433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Zhu F, Anadani M, Labreuche J, et al. Impact of antiplatelet therapy during endovascular therapy for tandem occlusions. Stroke 2020; 51: 1522–1529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Marnat G, Finistis S, Moreno R, et al. Aspirin versus aggressive antiplatelet therapy for acute carotid stenting plus thrombectomy in tandem occlusions: ETIS Registry results. J Neurointerv Surg. Epub ahead of print 10 November 2022. DOI: 10.1136/jnis-2022-019527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Pop R, Burel J, Finitsis SN, et al. Comparison of three antithrombotic strategies for emergent carotid stenting during stroke thrombectomy: a multicenter study. J Neurointerv Surg. Epub ahead of print 9 February 2023. DOI: 10.1136/jnis-2022-019875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Farooqui M, Zaidat OO, Hassan AE, et al. Functional and safety outcomes of carotid artery stenting and mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion ischemic stroke with tandem lesions. JAMA netw Open 2023; 6: e230736. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Fischer U, Kaesmacher J, Strbian D, et al. Thrombectomy alone versus intravenous alteplase plus thrombectomy in patients with stroke: an open-label, blinded-outcome, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2022; 400: 104–115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Yang P, Zhang Y, Zhang L, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy with or without intravenous alteplase in acute stroke. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1981–1993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Mitchell PJ, Yan B, Churilov L, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy versus standard bridging thrombolytic with endovascular thrombectomy within 4·5 h of stroke onset: an open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2022; 400: 116–125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Turc G, Tsivgoulis G, Audebert HJ, et al. European Stroke Organisation – European Society for minimally invasive neurological therapy expedited recommendation on indication for intravenous thrombolysis before mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischaemic stroke and anterior circulation large vessel occlusion. Eur Stroke J 2022; 7: I–XXVI. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: 2019 update to the 2018 Guidelines for the early management of acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2019; 50: e344–e418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Campbell BC V, Mitchell PJ, Churilov L, et al. Tenecteplase versus alteplase before thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1573–1582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Menon BK, Buck BH, Singh N, et al. Intravenous tenecteplase compared with alteplase for acute ischemic stroke in Canada (AcT): a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, registry-linked, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2022; 400: 161–169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Bala F, Singh N, Buck B, et al. Safety and efficacy of tenecteplase compared with alteplase in patients with large vessel occlusion stroke: a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACT randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2023; 80: 824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Yogendrakumar V, Churilov L, Mitchell PJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of tenecteplase and alteplase in patients with tandem lesion stroke: a post hoc analysis of the EXTEND-IA TNK trials. Neurology 2023; 100: e1900–e1911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Zhu F, Gauberti M, Marnat G, et al. Time from I.V. Thrombolysis to thrombectomy and outcome in acute ischemic stroke. Ann Neurol 2021; 89: 511–519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Gerschenfeld G, Smadja D, Turc G, et al. Functional outcome, recanalization, and hemorrhage rates after large vessel occlusion stroke treated with tenecteplase before thrombectomy. Neurology 2021; 97: e2173–e2184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Zhu F, Hossu G, Soudant M, et al. Effect of emergent carotid stenting during endovascular therapy for acute anterior circulation stroke patients with tandem occlusion: a multicenter, randomized, clinical trial (TITAN) protocol. Int J Stroke 2021; 16: 342–348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Marnat G, Lapergue B, Sibon I, et al. Safety and outcome of carotid dissection stenting during the treatment of tandem occlusions: A pooled analysis of TITAN and ETIS. Stroke 2020; 51: 3713–3718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. van der Steen W, van de Graaf RA, Chalos V, et al. Safety and efficacy of aspirin, unfractionated heparin, both, or neither during endovascular stroke treatment (MR CLEAN-MED): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2022; 399: 1059–1069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Julien A, François D, Raoul P, et al. 24-hour carotid stent patency and outcomes after endovascular therapy: a multicenter study. Stroke 2023; 54: 124–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Bricout N, Personnic T, Ferrigno M, et al. Day 1 extracranial internal carotid artery patency is associated with good outcome after mechanical thrombectomy for tandem occlusion. Stroke 2018; 49: 2520–2522. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Pop R, Zinchenko I, Quenardelle V, et al. Predictors and clinical impact of delayed stent thrombosis after thrombectomy for acute stroke with tandem lesions. Am J Neuroradiol 2019; 40: 533–539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Happi Ngankou E, Gory B, Marnat G, et al. Thrombectomy complications in large vessel occlusions: incidence, predictors, and clinical impact in the ETIS Registry. Stroke 2021; 52: e764–e768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Caroff J, Aubert L, Lavenu-Bombled C, et al. Antithrombotic therapies for neurointerventional surgery: a 2021 French comprehensive national survey. J Neurointerv Surg 2023; 15: 402–407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-eso-10.1177_23969873231206894 for Intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase versus alteplase combined with endovascular treatment of anterior circulation tandem occlusions: A pooled analysis of ETIS and TETRIS by Gaultier Marnat, Bertrand Lapergue, Benjamin Gory, Maeva Kyheng, Julien Labreuche, Guillaume Turc, Stephanze Olindo, Igor Sibon, Jildaz Caroff, Didier Smadja, Nicolas Chausson, Frederic Clarençon, Pierre Seners, Romain Bourcier, Raoul Pop, Jean-Marc Olivot, Mikael Mazighi, Solène Moulin, Kevin Janot, Christophe Cognard, Sonia Alamowitch and Gaspard Gerschenfeld in European Stroke Journal
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-eso-10.1177_23969873231206894 for Intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase versus alteplase combined with endovascular treatment of anterior circulation tandem occlusions: A pooled analysis of ETIS and TETRIS by Gaultier Marnat, Bertrand Lapergue, Benjamin Gory, Maeva Kyheng, Julien Labreuche, Guillaume Turc, Stephanze Olindo, Igor Sibon, Jildaz Caroff, Didier Smadja, Nicolas Chausson, Frederic Clarençon, Pierre Seners, Romain Bourcier, Raoul Pop, Jean-Marc Olivot, Mikael Mazighi, Solène Moulin, Kevin Janot, Christophe Cognard, Sonia Alamowitch and Gaspard Gerschenfeld in European Stroke Journal
Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-eso-10.1177_23969873231206894 for Intravenous thrombolysis with tenecteplase versus alteplase combined with endovascular treatment of anterior circulation tandem occlusions: A pooled analysis of ETIS and TETRIS by Gaultier Marnat, Bertrand Lapergue, Benjamin Gory, Maeva Kyheng, Julien Labreuche, Guillaume Turc, Stephanze Olindo, Igor Sibon, Jildaz Caroff, Didier Smadja, Nicolas Chausson, Frederic Clarençon, Pierre Seners, Romain Bourcier, Raoul Pop, Jean-Marc Olivot, Mikael Mazighi, Solène Moulin, Kevin Janot, Christophe Cognard, Sonia Alamowitch and Gaspard Gerschenfeld in European Stroke Journal