Comparing Bridging Thrombolysis with Direct Thrombectomy in Stroke due to Large Vessel Occlusion- Indian Experience (LVO-Direct)

OBJECTIVES: Intravenous thrombolysis alone has poor recanalization rates in large vessel occlusion strokes. Bridging thrombolysis has evolved as a standard treatment approach in emergent large vessel occlusions. Patients who undergo thrombectomy have a higher probability of favorable outcomes irrespective of the use of prior intravenous thrombolysis. Our aim was to compare bridging thrombolysis with direct thrombectomy in ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion. METHODS: We included patients from our stroke registry, with large vessel occlusion strokes, presenting <4.5 hr from onset. Bridging thrombolysis was the standard approach. Direct thrombectomy was done in patients with contraindications to intravenous thrombolysis. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin scale at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were National Institute of Health Stroke Scale at 24 hr post-procedure, door to puncture time, puncture to recanalization time, the extent of recanalization, and the number of passes required. Safety outcomes were any occurrence of intracranial hemorrhage or other complications related to procedure or death. Logistic regression analysis was used to find the factors affecting the outcome. RESULTS: Total 76 patients were included, 29 underwent bridging thrombolysis and 47 underwent direct thrombectomy. A favorable outcome (mRS 0-2) was achieved in 19 (65.5%) patients in the bridging group and 25 (58.1%) patients in the direct group (P = 0.4, Chi-square test). There was no significant difference in any of the secondary outcomes as well. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 2 (2.6%) patients and a total of 10 (13.9%) were dead at 3-month follow-up, comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: Direct thrombectomy has comparable outcomes to bridging thrombolysis in emergent large vessel occlusions.