Safety and efficacy of tenecteplase versus alteplase in stroke patients with carotid tandem lesions: Results from the AcT trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carotid tandem lesions ((TL) ⩾70% stenosis or occlusion) account for 15-20% of acute stroke with large vessel occlusion. AIMS: We investigated the safety and efficacy of intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg) versus intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) in patients with carotid TL. METHODS: This is a substudy of the alteplase compared with the tenecteplase trial. Patients with ⩾70% stenosis of the extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) and concomitant occlusion of the intracranial ICA, M1 or M2 segments of the middle cerebral artery on baseline computed tomography angiography (CTA) were included. Primary outcome was 90-day-modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-1. Secondary outcomes were mRS 0-2, mortality, and symptomatic ICH (sICH). Angiographic outcomes were successful recanalization (revised Arterial Occlusive Lesion (rAOL) 2b-3) on first and successful reperfusion (eTICI 2b-3) on final angiographic acquisitions. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: Among 1577 alteplase versus tenecteplase randomized controlled trial (AcT) patients, 128 (18.8%) had carotid TL. Of these, 93 (72.7%) underwent intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular thrombectomy (IVT + EVT), while 35 (27.3%) were treated with IVT alone. In the IVT + EVT group, tenecteplase was associated with higher odds of 90-day-mRS 0-1 (46.0% vs. 32.6%, adjusted OR (aOR) 3.21; 95% CI = 1.06-9.71) compared with alteplase. No statistically significant differences in rates of mRS 0-2 (aOR 1.53; 95% CI = 0.51-4.55), initial rAOL 2b-3 (16.3% vs. 28.6%), final eTICI 2b-3 (83.7% vs. 85.7%), and mortality (18.0% vs. 16.3%) were found. SICH only occurred in one patient. There were no differences in outcomes between thrombolytic agents in the IVT-only group. CONCLUSION: In patients with carotid TL treated with EVT, intravenous tenecteplase may be associated with similar or better clinical outcomes, similar angiographic reperfusion rates, and safety outcomes as compared with alteplase.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".