Safety and Efficacy of Bridging Intravenous Thrombolysis Versus Direct Endovascular Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Treated in the 6- to 24-Hour Time Window: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Abstract Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) plus endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) versus direct EVT in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (LVO) treated within the 6- to 24-hour time window. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of prospective EVT registry from 10 comprehensive stroke centers in China and Singapore between 2019 and 2024. Eligible patients had anterior circulation LVO, underwent EVT within 6-24 hours of onset, had ASPECTS 6, NIHSS 6, and pre-stroke mRS 2. Patients were stratified into bridging IVT + EVT (IVT group) versus direct EVT alone (non-IVT group). Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) was performed to balance baseline covariates. The primary outcome was 3-month favorable functional outcome (mRS 0-2). Secondary outcomes included successful recanalization (mTICI 2b-3), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), hemorrhagic transformation (HT) and 3-month mortality. In the matched cohort, binary outcomes were compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Results: Of 772 included patients, 110 (14.2%) received bridging IVT and 662 (85.8%) received direct EVT. After propensity score matching, 202 non-IVT patients were matched to 101 IVT patients, with all covariates well-balanced (absolute SMD <0.10). In the matched cohort, bridging IVT was not associated with a significant difference in 3-month favorable outcome (44.55% vs. 47.03%; common OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.56-1.46), successful recanalization (91.09% vs. 90.10%; OR 1.11; 0.51-2.44), sICH (5.94% vs. 9.41%; OR 0.61; 0.24-1.58), HT (23.76% vs. 23.27%; OR 1.03; 0.57-1.85), or 3-month mortality (15.84% vs. 13.37%; OR 1.22; 0.62-2.37). Conclusion: In this large multicenter propensity score-matched analysis, bridging intravenous thrombolysis before endovascular thrombectomy in the 6- to 24-hour time window was not significantly associated with improved efficacy or increased safety risks compared with direct endovascular therapy alone.