Tenecteplase versus Alteplase before thrombectomy: A comprehensive evaluation of clinical and angiographic impact: Insights from the ETIS registry

Introduction

Data on prior use of Tenecteplase versus Alteplase in acute stroke management by mechanical thrombectomy are controversial. Our primary objective was to make a comprehensive comparative assessment of clinical and angiographic efficacy and safety outcomes in a large prospective observational study.

Methods

We included stroke patients who were eligible for intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy between 2019 and 2021, from an ongoing registry in twenty comprehensive stroke centers in France. We divided patients into two groups based on the thrombolytic agent used (Alteplase vs Tenecteplase). We then compared their treatment times, and their angiographic (TICI scale), clinical (mRS at three months and sICH) and safety outcomes after controlling for potential confounders using propensity score methods.

Results

We evaluated 1131 patients having undergone thrombectomy for the final analysis, 250 received Tenecteplase and 881 Alteplase. Both groups were of the same median age (75 vs 74 respectively), and had the same baseline NIHSS score (16) and ASPECTS (8). There was no significant difference for First Pass Effect (OR 0.93, 95 % CI 0.76–1.14, p = 0.75), time required for reperfusion (OR 0.03, 95 % CI 0.09–0.16, p = 0.49), or for final reperfusion status. Clinically, functional independence at 90 days was similar in both groups (OR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.61–1.10, p = 0.18) with the same risk of sICH (OR 1.36, 95 % CI 0.77–2.41, p = 0.28). However, Tenecteplase patients had shorter imaging-to-groin puncture times (99 vs 142 min, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Tenecteplase showed no better clinical or angiographic impact on thrombectomy compared to Alteplase. Nevertheless, it appeared associated with a shorter thrombolysis-to-groin puncture time.