SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Intra-arterial thrombolysis agents following endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the standard treatment for acute ischemic stroke caused by large-vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO), but incomplete microvascular reperfusion often limits recovery. The 2026 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guideline suggests that adjunctive intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) may be considered after successful EVT to target residual microthrombi, yet the comparative efficacy and safety of different IAT strategies remain unclear. This study therefore compared the efficacy and safety of various IAT strategies following successful EVT in AIS-LVO. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from their inception through 26 February 2026, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVT alone or with IAT. A Bayesian network meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model was conducted. Results: Seven RCTs including 2,131 patients were analyzed. Compared with EVT alone, EVT + 0.225 mg/kg alteplase (ALT) or 0.125 mg/kg tenecteplase (TNK) significantly improved excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-1) (OR 1.95, 95% CrI 1.32-2.89; OR 1.91, 95% CrI 1.12-3.27), while EVT + 0.0625 mg/kg TNK was associated with a significantly higher risk of any intracranial hemorrhage (aICH) (OR 1.53, 95% CrI 1.13-2.07). No statistically significant differences were observed for functional independence (mRS 0-2), favorable outcome (mRS 0-3), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), or 90 day mortality. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis indicated that EVT + 0.225 mg/kg ALT ranked highest for functional independence (mRS 0-2), but also ranked higher for the risk of 90 day mortality. In contrast, EVT + 0.0625 mg/kg TNK ranked highest for favorable outcome (mRS 0-3), while also ranking highest for the risk of sICH and aICH. Conclusion: Not all IAT strategies showed statistically significant efficacy, but EVT + 0.225 mg/kg ALT or 0.125 mg/kg TNK significantly improved excellent functional outcomes. SUCRAs suggested that EVT + 0.225 mg/kg ALT may provide broader functional benefits with a lower risk of sICH. Further confirmation in head-to-head RCTs is warranted. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251250195, identifier CRD420251250195.
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.