Safety and Efficacy of Tenecteplase Compared With Alteplase in Patients With Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: It is unknown whether intravenous thrombolysis using tenecteplase is noninferior or preferable compared with alteplase for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Objective: To examine the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase compared to alteplase among patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified analysis of the Intravenous Tenecteplase Compared With Alteplase for Acute Ischaemic Stroke in Canada (ACT) randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients from 22 primary and comprehensive stroke centers across Canada between December 10, 2019, and January 25, 2022. Patients 18 years and older with a disabling ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours of symptom onset were randomly assigned (1:1) to either intravenous tenecteplase or alteplase and were monitored for up to 120 days. Patients with baseline intracranial internal carotid artery (ICA), M1-middle cerebral artery (MCA), M2-MCA, and basilar occlusions were included in this analysis. A total of 1600 patients were enrolled, and 23 withdrew consent. Exposures: Intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) vs intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of modified Rankin scale (mRS) score 0-1 at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were an mRS score from 0 to 2, mortality, and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage. Angiographic outcomes were successful reperfusion (extended Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale score 2b-3) on first and final angiographic acquisitions. Multivariable analyses (adjusting for age, sex, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score, onset-to-needle time, and occlusion location) were carried out. Results: Among 1577 patients, 520 (33.0%) had LVO (median [IQR] age, 74 [64-83] years; 283 [54.4%] women): 135 (26.0%) with ICA occlusion, 237 (45.6%) with M1-MCA, 117 (22.5%) with M2-MCA, and 31 (6.0%) with basilar occlusions. The primary outcome (mRS score 0-1) was achieved in 86 participants (32.7%) in the tenecteplase group vs 76 (29.6%) in the alteplase group. Rates of mRS 0-2 (129 [49.0%] vs 131 [51.0%]), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (16 [6.1%] vs 11 [4.3%]), and mortality (19.9% vs 18.1%) were similar in the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively. No difference was noted in successful reperfusion rates in the first (19 [9.2%] vs 21 [10.5%]) and final angiogram (174 [84.5%] vs 177 [88.9%]) among 405 patients who underwent thrombectomy. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings in this study indicate that intravenous tenecteplase conferred similar reperfusion, safety, and functional outcomes compared to alteplase among patients with LVO.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".