BackgroundAmong patients who had an ischaemic stroke presenting directly to a stroke centre where endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is immediately available, there is uncertainty regarding the role of intravenous thrombolysis agents before or concurrently with EVT. To support a rapid guideline, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the impact of EVT alone versus EVT with intravenous alteplase in patients who had an acute ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion.MethodsIn November 2021, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, clincialtrials.gov and the ISRCTN registry for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EVT alone versus EVT with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke. We conducted meta-analyses using fixed effects models and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsIn total 6 RCTs including 2334 participants were eligible. Low certainty evidence suggests that, compared with EVT and alteplase, there is possibly a small decrease in the proportion of patients independent with EVT alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.05; risk difference (RD) −1.5%; 95% CI −5.4% to 2.5%), and possibly a small increase in mortality with EVT alone (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.29; RD 1.2%, 95% CI −2.0% to 4.9%) . Moderate certainty evidence suggests that there is probably a small decrease in symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) with EVT alone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07; RD −1.0%; 95%CI −1.8% to 0.27%).ConclusionsLow certainty evidence suggests that there is possibly a small decrease in the proportion of patients that achieve functional independence and a small increase in mortality with EVT alone. Moderate certainty evidence suggests that there is probably a small decrease in sICH with EVT alone. The accompanying guideline provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021249873.

No abstract

Objective: Previous studies on the efficacy and safety of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been inconclusive. Aim: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate if the genotype-guided antiplatelet strategy is superior to the standard therapy in patients with CAD or undergoing PCI. Method: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to October 1st, 2021. Studies reporting efficacy and safety outcomes in the genotype-guided treatment and standard treatment groups were included. The two groups were statistically compared. Result: Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 11740 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the standard treatment group, the genotype-guided group had significant lower risks of all efficacy outcomes, including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (RR 0.60, 95%, CI 0.44-0.82, P=0.001), all-cause death (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.95, P=0.02), cardiovascular death (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.95, P=0.02), myocardial infarction (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.67, P<0.0001), stroke (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-0.98, P=0.04), stent thrombosis (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.91, P=0.01) and targeted vessel revascularization (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.92, P=0.003). There was no significant difference in any bleeding events between the two groups. As a result of the subgroup analyses, the genotype-guided treatment was more likely to reduce the incidence of MACEs in the subgroup where the proportion of patients with ACS was ≥ 90%, and subgroup of the Chinese population. Conclusion: Genotype-guided antiplatelet treatment could reduce the risk of MACEs without increasing the risk of bleeding events as compared with the standard treatment in patients with CAD or those undergoing PCI. In addition, Genotype-guided antiplatelet treatment might benefit Chinese population or patients with ACS.