Introduction: Acute ischemic stroke remains the major cause of death and disability and conclusive evidence of Tenecteplase in treating stroke is lacking. Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis to determine whether Tenecteplase produces better outcomes than Alteplase and a network meta-analysis comparing the different dosing regimens of Tenecteplase. Methods: Searches were made in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The outcome measures are recanalization, early neurological improvement, functional outcomes at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale 0–1 and 0–2), intracranial hemorrhage, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and mortality within 90 days from treatment. Results: Fourteen studies are included in the meta-analyses and 18 studies in the network meta-analyses. In the meta-analysis, Tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg has significant results in early neurological improvement (OR = 2.35, and 95% CI = 1.16–4.72) and excellent functional outcome (OR = 1.20, and 95% CI = 1.02–1.42). In the network meta-analysis, Tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg produces significant results in early neurological improvement (OR = 1.52 [95% CI = 1.13–2.05], p-value = 0.01), functional outcomes (mRS 0–1 and 0–2) (OR = 1.19 [95% CI = 1.03–1.37], p-value = 0.02; OR = 1.21 [95% CI = 1.05–1.39], p-value = 0.01; respectively) and mortality (OR = 0.78 [95% CI = 0.64–0.96], p-value = 0.02) whereas Tenecteplase 0.40 mg/kg increases the chances of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 2.35 [95% CI = 1.19–4.64], p-value = 0.01). Conclusion: While not conclusive, our study lends evidence to 0.25 mg/kg Tenecteplase dose for ischemic stroke treatment. Further randomized trials need to be done to validate this finding. Registration: International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) – CRD42022339774 URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=339774

Background Extracranial artery dissection involving either internal carotid artery or vertebral artery is a major cause of stroke in adults under 50 years of age. There is no conclusive evidence whether antiplatelets or anticoagulants are better suited in the treatment of extracranial artery dissection. Objectives To determine whether antiplatelets or anticoagulants have advantage over the other in the treatment of extracranial artery dissection for secondary prevention of recurrent ischemic events or death. Methods Present meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Database search was done in Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 2021 using pre-defined search strategy. Additional studies were identified from reference lists from included studies, reviews and previous meta-analyses. Outcome measures were ischaemic stroke, ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and death. Results Two RCTs and 64 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. While the outcome measures of stroke, stroke or TIA and death were numerically higher with antiplatelet use, there were no statistically significant differences between antiplatelets and anticoagulants. Conclusion We found no significant difference between antiplatelet and anticoagulation treatment after extracranial artery dissection. The choice of treatment should be tailored to individual cases.

No abstract