Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 16, 2026
Optimized Management of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Published on: January 18, 2018
Bridging Therapy with i. v. rtPA in MCA Occlusion Prior to Endovascular Thrombectomy: a Double-Edged Sword?
Johannes Kaesmacher1, Justus F Kleine2
1Abteilung für diagnostische und interventionelle Neuroradiologie, Technische Universität München, Ismaninger Str 22, 81675, Munich, Germany.
Background:
Recent studies suggested that preinterventional intravenous (i. v.) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) as bridging therapy facilitates successful and fast vessel recanalization in endovascular stroke treatment (EST); however, data on this effect and the associated clinical value are discrepant.
Objective:
This study examined if this discrepancy could be related to an effect-modifying variable, specifically to the exact occlusion site.
Methods:
Retrospective analysis of 239 patients with acute occlusion of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) treated with up to date endovascular techniques. Effects of i. v.-rtPA bridging on clinical outcomes and safety/efficacy of EST, defined as the respective rates of successful, first pass and thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) scale 3 recanalization, were evaluated and stratified according to distal versus proximal occlusion sites.
Results:
Overall, i. v.-rtPA bridging was associated with a significantly higher rate of successful recanalization (86.9 % vs. 75.7 %, p = 0.028). i. v.-rtPA bridging-related effects, however, were observable only in distal, but not in proximal MCA-occlusions. In distal occlusions, i. v.-rtPA clearly favored successful recanalization (adj. OR 4.6, 95 %-CI 1.5-13.6, p = 0.006) and first-pass successes (adj. OR 2.8, 95 %-CI 1.0-7.6, p = 0.042), but tended to be associated with lower rates of complete (TICI-3) reperfusion (adj. OR 0.4, 95 %-CI 0.2-1.1, p = 0.068). The net effect was a small clinical benefit, reflected in higher rates of strong neurological improvement (adj. OR: 2.8, 95 %-CI: 1.1-6.9, p = 0.03).
Conclusion:
i. v.-rtPA-bridging-related effects are occlusion site-dependent, paralleling similar effects of systemic i. v.-rtPA when applied without subsequent endovascular therapy. In distal occlusions, i. v.-rtPA facilitates thrombectomy, but may also promote distal embolization, with a small clinical benefit as overall net effect. Randomized trials assessing i.v-rtPA bridging need to be stratified according to occlusions sites.
