Effect of Time to Thrombolysis on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Treated with Tenecteplase Compared to Alteplase: Analysis from the AcT Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The Alteplase compared to Tenecteplase (AcT) randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that tenecteplase is non-inferior to alteplase in treating acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours of symptom onset. The effect of time to treatment on clinical outcomes with alteplase is well known, however the nature of this relationship is yet to be described with tenecteplase. We assessed whether the association of time to thrombolysis treatment with clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke differs by whether they receive intravenous tenecteplase versus alteplase. Methods Patients included were from AcT, a pragmatic, registry linked, phase 3 RCT comparing intravenous tenecteplase to alteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Eligible patients were >18 years old, with disabling neurological deficits, presenting within 4·5 hours of symptom onset, and eligible for thrombolysis. Primary outcome was modified Rankin scale(mRS) 0-1 at 90 days. Safety outcomes included 24-hour symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) and 90-day mortality rates. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to assess a)the association of stroke symptom onset to needle time (ONT), b)door (hospital arrival) to needle time(DNT) with outcomes and c)if these associations were modified by type of thrombolytic administered (tenecteplase vs. alteplase), after adjusting for age, sex, baseline stroke severity and site of intracranial occlusion. Results Of the 1538 patients included in this analysis, 1146(74.5%)[591: tenecteplase, 555 alteplase] presented within 3 hours vs. 392 (25.5%)[196: TNK, 196 alteplase] who presented within 3-4.5 hours of symptom onset. Baseline patient characteristics in the 0-3 hour versus 3-4.5-hour time window were similar, except patients in the 3-to-4.5-hour window had lower median baseline NIHSS (10 vs 7 respectively) and lower proportion of patients with large vessel occlusion on baseline CT Angiography (26.9% vs 18.7% respectively). Type of thrombolytic agent (tenecteplase vs. alteplase) did not modify the association between ONT(p interaction = 0.161) or DNT(p interaction = 0.972) and primary clinical outcome. Irrespective of the thrombolytic agent used, each 30-min reduction in ONT was associated with a 1.8% increase while every 10 min reduction in DNT was associated with a 0.2% increase in the probability of achieving 90-day mRS 0-1 respectively. Conclusion The effect of time to tenecteplase administration on clinical outcomes is like that of alteplase, with faster administration resulting in better clinical outcomes. Key points: Question In patients with acute ischemic stroke, does the effect of time to thrombolysis on clinical outcomes differ with tenecteplase vs. alteplase administration? Findings In this analysis from the alteplase compared to tenecteplase (AcT) trial, a pragmatic, registry linked, phase 3 randomized controlled trial, each 30-min reduction in stroke onset to thrombolysis start time was associated with a 1.8% increase in the probability of achieving excellent functional outcome, which means that for every 30-minute reduction in onset to needle time two more of a 100 people achieved an excellent outcome. This effect was not modified by type of thrombolytic used (alteplase versus tenecteplase) Meaning The effect of time to tenecteplase administration on clinical outcomes is like that of alteplase, with faster administration resulting in better clinical outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».