The Great Recanalization Debate in Acute Ischemic Stroke-Direct Thrombectomy versus Bridging Therapy A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundEndovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the standard of care for acute ischemic stroke caused by large-vessel occlusion. However, the additional benefit of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before EVT remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of bridging therapy (EVT plus IVT) compared with EVT alone. MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane Handbook recommendations and prospectively registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, EMbase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials published between 1st January 2015 and 30th April 2026 comparing EVT plus IVT versus EVT alone in acute ischemic stroke. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Primary outcomes included functional independence at 90 days and successful recanalization. Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and all-cause mortality. ResultsEleven randomized controlled trials involving 4,419 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with EVT alone, bridging therapy was associated with significantly better functional independence at 90 days (OR=1.25; 95% CI: 1.02-1.53). Patients receiving EVT plus IVT also demonstrated a trend toward higher rates of successful recanalization (OR=1.25; 95% CI: 0.95-1.64) and lower 90-day mortality (OR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.67-1.04). The risk of sICH was comparable between the two treatment strategies (OR=1.07; 95% CI: 0.81-1.40). Overall, the certainty of evidence was rated as moderate. ConclusionsBridging therapy before EVT may improve functional outcomes and recanalization without increasing sICH, supporting its use as a reasonable treatment strategy in eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke.