Extended thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke: A Bayesian meta-analysis and umbrella review
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
For acute ischemic stroke, national practice guidelines recommend thrombolysis within a 4.5-hour time window from symptom onset. Randomized trials with advanced neuroimaging have now examined extended thrombolytic time windows, and multiple meta-analyses have provided positive endorsements. However, these previous meta-analyses have not fully exploited the available data, examined quality of life, or reported the probability of clinically meaningful effects. This meta-analysis addresses these potential shortcomings.
Methods
We performed a i) systematic literature review up to August 1, 2025, of all randomized controlled trials comparing thrombolysis (alteplase or tenecteplase) with the assistance of advanced neuroimaging to standard, non-thrombolytic therapy in acute ischemic stroke patients with unknown time or beyond 4.5 hours since symptom onset and ii) an umbrella review of previous meta-analyses addressing this issue. Our primary outcome was the mean difference in the utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale (uw-mRS) scores. Secondary outcomes were the absolute risk difference (ARD) for minor disability status and mortality. Bayesian random effects meta-analyses were performed assuming a normal-normal hierarchical model with non-informative priors, which permitted probability calculations for benefit, harm, and regions of practical equivalence (ROPE).
Results
Six original randomized trials of extended thrombolysis and 7 meta-analyses were identified but none had considered a uw-mRS score or reported direct probability statements regarding benefit or harm. Our primary uw-mRS outcome showed a ROPE probability of 99% with only a 1% probability of a clinically beneficial response with extended alteplase. There was also a 72% probability that mortality increased by at least 1 life / 100 treated with extended thrombolysis.
Conclusions
In contrast with previous publications, this meta-analysis and umbrella review highlights the uncertainty of clinical benefits from extended thrombolysis treatment windows and the need for further high-quality research before this treatment is accepted into routine practice.
