SynthesisClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2024
Real-world setting comparison of bridging therapy versus direct mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bridging therapy versus direct mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke: an updated meta-analysis of real-world evidence.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Endovascular therapy in acute ischaemic stroke patients with prestroke dependency-an EVA-TRISP cohort study.European stroke journal · 2026Observational
- Real-World Outcomes of Ischemic Stroke Interventions in Older Patients: A Cohort Study from a Tertiary Medical Center.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Safety of endovascular therapy in ischemic stroke patients ⩾90 years: A cohort study from the EVA-TRISP collaboration.European stroke journal · 2026Observational
- Safety of endovascular therapy in ischemic stroke patients ⩾90 years: A cohort study from the EVA-TRISP collaboration.European stroke journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeIntravenous Thrombolysis (IVT) prior to Mechanical Thrombectomy (MT) for Acute Ischaemic Stroke (AIS) due to Large-Vessel Occlusion (LVO) remains controversial. Therefore, the authors performed a meta-analysis of the available real-world evidence focusing on the efficacy and safety of Bridging Therapy (BT) compared with direct MT in patients with AIS due to LVO.
methodsFour databases were searched until 01 February 2023. Retrospective and prospective studies from nationwide or health organization registry databases that compared the clinical outcomes of BT and direct MT were included. Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95 % Confidence Intervals (CIs) for efficacy and safety outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model.
resultsOf the 12 studies, 86,695 patients were included. In patients with AIS due to LVO, BT group was associated with higher odds of achieving excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1) at 90 days (OR = 1.48, 95 % CI 1.25-1.75), favorable discharge disposition (to the home with or without services) (OR = 1.33, 95 % CI 1.29-1.38), and decreased mortality at 90 days (OR = 0.62, 95 % CI 0.56-0.70), as compared with the direct MT group. In addition, the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not increase significantly in the BT group.
conclusionThe present meta-analysis indicates that BT was associated with favorable outcomes in patients with AIS due to LVO. These findings support the current practice in a real-world setting and strengthen their validity. For patients eligible for both IVT and MT, BT remains the standard treatment until more data are available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.