Worldwide Survey on Approach to Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke With Large Vessel Occlusion

With recent trials suggesting that endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) alone may be noninferior to combined intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with alteplase and EVT and that tenecteplase is non-inferior to alteplase in treating acute ischemic stroke, we sought to understand current practices around the world for treating acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion (LVO) depending on the center of practice (IVT-capable vs IVT and EVT-capable stroke center).

The electronic survey launched by the Practice Current section of Neurology: Clinical Practice included 6 clinical and 8 demographic questions. A single-case scenario was presented of a 65-year-old man presenting with right hemiplegia with aphasia with a duration of 1 hour. Imaging showed left M1-MCA occlusion with no early ischemic changes. The respondents were asked about their treatment approach in 2 settings: the patient presented to (1) the IVT-only capable center and (2) the IVT and EVT-capable center. They were also asked about the thrombolytic agent of choice in current and ideal circumstances for these settings.

A total of 203 physicians (42.9% vascular neurologists) from 44 countries completed the survey. Most participants (55.2%) spent ≥50% of their time delivering stroke care. The survey results showed that in current practice, more than 90% of respondents would offer IVT + EVT to patients with LVO stroke presenting to either an EVT-capable (91.1%) or IVT-only-capable center (93.6%). Although nearly 80% currently use alteplase for thrombolysis, around 60% would ideally like to switch to tenecteplase independent of the practice setting. These results were similar between stroke and non-stroke neurologists.

Most physicians prefer IVT before EVT in patients with acute ischemic stroke attributable to large vessel occlusion independent of the practice setting.