比较桥接疗法与单一疗法对轻微中风患者的疗效和安全性:一项荟萃分析。

Q3 Medicine
Abdulsalam Aleid, Saud Aldanyowi, Abdulmajeed Aljabr, Sami Almalki, Awn Alessa, Mostafa Alhodibi, Mohammed Alsuwaylih, Yousef Alanazi, Abbas Almutair
{"title":"比较桥接疗法与单一疗法对轻微中风患者的疗效和安全性:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Abdulsalam Aleid, Saud Aldanyowi, Abdulmajeed Aljabr, Sami Almalki, Awn Alessa, Mostafa Alhodibi, Mohammed Alsuwaylih, Yousef Alanazi, Abbas Almutair","doi":"10.25122/jml-2024-0318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The two main therapeutic approaches for stroke treatment are endovascular thrombectomy, which involves mechanically removing the thrombus, and bridging therapy, which uses intravenous thrombolytics (IVT) prior to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). This study aimed to compare monotherapy (EVT or IVT alone) with bridging therapy (IVT+EVT) in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with minor ischemic stroke. After a thorough screening, eight studies were included for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, comprising a total of 3,117 patients across the treatment arms. The main outcomes of interest were the efficacy of treatment modality, the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and mortality. In terms of functional outcomes measured by the Modified Rankin Score (mRs) 0-1, no significant difference was observed when comparing IVT monotherapy with bridging therapy (IVT+EVT), with an odds ratio of 0.79 (<i>P</i> = 0.41). However, IVT was associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) compared to bridging therapy (OR = 0.51; <i>P</i> = 0.02), while EVT was associated with an increased risk of sICH compared to bridging therapy (OR = 8.33; <i>P</i> = 0.01). Mortality rates were comparable between IVT alone compared to bridging therapy and EVT alone compared to bridging therapy (<i>P</i> = 0.14). Although both treatment modalities share similar efficacy, there was a trend in favoring bridging therapy for mortality rates, but it was not statistically significant. Future randomized controlled trials and updated systematic reviews are needed within five to ten years to increase sample sizes and potentially identify statistically significant differences in mortality and other outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16386,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Life","volume":"18 1","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11891610/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the efficacy and safety of bridging therapy vs. monotherapy in patients with minor stroke: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Abdulsalam Aleid, Saud Aldanyowi, Abdulmajeed Aljabr, Sami Almalki, Awn Alessa, Mostafa Alhodibi, Mohammed Alsuwaylih, Yousef Alanazi, Abbas Almutair\",\"doi\":\"10.25122/jml-2024-0318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The two main therapeutic approaches for stroke treatment are endovascular thrombectomy, which involves mechanically removing the thrombus, and bridging therapy, which uses intravenous thrombolytics (IVT) prior to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). This study aimed to compare monotherapy (EVT or IVT alone) with bridging therapy (IVT+EVT) in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with minor ischemic stroke. After a thorough screening, eight studies were included for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, comprising a total of 3,117 patients across the treatment arms. The main outcomes of interest were the efficacy of treatment modality, the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and mortality. In terms of functional outcomes measured by the Modified Rankin Score (mRs) 0-1, no significant difference was observed when comparing IVT monotherapy with bridging therapy (IVT+EVT), with an odds ratio of 0.79 (<i>P</i> = 0.41). However, IVT was associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) compared to bridging therapy (OR = 0.51; <i>P</i> = 0.02), while EVT was associated with an increased risk of sICH compared to bridging therapy (OR = 8.33; <i>P</i> = 0.01). Mortality rates were comparable between IVT alone compared to bridging therapy and EVT alone compared to bridging therapy (<i>P</i> = 0.14). Although both treatment modalities share similar efficacy, there was a trend in favoring bridging therapy for mortality rates, but it was not statistically significant. Future randomized controlled trials and updated systematic reviews are needed within five to ten years to increase sample sizes and potentially identify statistically significant differences in mortality and other outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medicine and Life\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11891610/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medicine and Life\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2024-0318\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Life","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25122/jml-2024-0318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the efficacy and safety of bridging therapy vs. monotherapy in patients with minor stroke: a meta-analysis.

The two main therapeutic approaches for stroke treatment are endovascular thrombectomy, which involves mechanically removing the thrombus, and bridging therapy, which uses intravenous thrombolytics (IVT) prior to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). This study aimed to compare monotherapy (EVT or IVT alone) with bridging therapy (IVT+EVT) in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with minor ischemic stroke. After a thorough screening, eight studies were included for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis, comprising a total of 3,117 patients across the treatment arms. The main outcomes of interest were the efficacy of treatment modality, the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and mortality. In terms of functional outcomes measured by the Modified Rankin Score (mRs) 0-1, no significant difference was observed when comparing IVT monotherapy with bridging therapy (IVT+EVT), with an odds ratio of 0.79 (P = 0.41). However, IVT was associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) compared to bridging therapy (OR = 0.51; P = 0.02), while EVT was associated with an increased risk of sICH compared to bridging therapy (OR = 8.33; P = 0.01). Mortality rates were comparable between IVT alone compared to bridging therapy and EVT alone compared to bridging therapy (P = 0.14). Although both treatment modalities share similar efficacy, there was a trend in favoring bridging therapy for mortality rates, but it was not statistically significant. Future randomized controlled trials and updated systematic reviews are needed within five to ten years to increase sample sizes and potentially identify statistically significant differences in mortality and other outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medicine and Life
Journal of Medicine and Life Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
202
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medicine and Life publishes peer-reviewed articles from various fields of medicine and life sciences, including original research, systematic reviews, special reports, case presentations, major medical breakthroughs and letters to the editor. The Journal focuses on current matters that lie at the intersection of biomedical science and clinical practice and strives to present this information to inform health care delivery and improve patient outcomes. Papers addressing topics such as neuroprotection, neurorehabilitation, neuroplasticity, and neuroregeneration are particularly encouraged, as part of the Journal''s continuous interest in neuroscience research. The Editorial Board of the Journal of Medicine and Life is open to consider manuscripts from all levels of research and areas of biological sciences, including fundamental, experimental or clinical research and matters of public health. As part of our pledge to promote an educational and community-building environment, our issues feature sections designated to informing our readers regarding exciting international congresses, teaching courses and relevant institutional-level events.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信