Endovascular Thrombectomy Versus Bridging Thrombolysis: Real‐World Efficacy and Safety Analysis Based on a Nationwide Registry Study

BACKGROUND: It was uncertain if direct endovascular thrombectomy (ET) was superior to bridging thrombolysis (BT) for patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by large‐vessel occlusions. We aimed to examine real‐world clinical outcomes of ET using nationwide registry data in China and to compare the efficacy and safety between BT and direct ET. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients treated with ET from a nationwide registry study in China were included. Rapid neurological improvement, intracranial hemorrhage, and in‐hospital mortality were compared between the 2 groups using multivariate logistic models and propensity‐score matching analyses. A total of 7674 patients from 592 stroke centers were included. The median onset‐to‐puncture time, onset‐to‐door time, and door to puncture time were 290, 170, and 99 minutes, respectively. A total of 2069 (27.0%) patients received BT treatment. Patients in the BT group had a significantly shorter onset‐to‐puncture time (235 versus 323 minutes; P<0.001) and onset‐to‐door time (90 versus 222 minutes; P<0.001) compared with the direct ET group. The prior use of intravenous thrombolysis was associated with a higher rate of rapid neurological improvement (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.96) and higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.18–1.80) in multivariate analyses and propensity‐score matching analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study reflects the current application of ET in China. More patients received direct ET than BT. Our results suggested that favorable short‐term outcomes could be achieved with BT compared with direct ET. Higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage was observed in the BT group.