Scholarlink

Background <p>The TRACE-3 trial established the efficacy of intravenous tenecteplase for patients with acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion in the late time window. It remains unclear whether intravenous tenecteplase confers clinical benefits specifically in the subpopulation of patients who did not achieve successful large vessel recanalization.</p> Methods <p>This is a post-hoc analysis of the TRACE-3 trial, a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing tenecteplase with standard medical therapy in patients with large vessel occlusion between 4.5 and 24&#xa0;h of symptom onset. The analysis included participants who had failed recanalization (defined as an Arterial Occlusive Lesion [AOL] score of 0) on follow-up angiography at 24&#xa0;h. Primary outcome of current study was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0–2) at 90&#xa0;days. We assessed effect modification by baseline characteristics, including stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS]) and collateral circulation status.</p> Results <p>Among 288 patients with failed recanalization (123 in the tenecteplase group and 165 in the control group), tenecteplase was associated with a significantly higher rate of functional independence at 90&#xa0;days compared with standard medical therapy (42.3% vs. 29.7%; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1.37, 95% CI [Confidence Interval] 1.00–1.86, <i>P</i> = 0.048). Tenecteplase also resulted in greater reduction in NIHSS scores at 7&#xa0;days (adjusted β 0.31, <i>P</i> = 0.028). A significant interaction was observed between treatment effect and baseline stroke severity (P for interaction = 0.02). The benefit of tenecteplase was significant in patients with moderate-to-severe stroke (NIHSS ≥ 10; RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30–5.79) but not significant in those with minor-to-moderate stroke (NIHSS &lt; 10). Collateral status did not significantly modify the treatment effect (P for interaction = 0.35).</p> Conclusions <p>In patients with ischemic stroke treated in the late time window, tenecteplase was associated with improved functional outcomes despite persistent large vessel occlusion. Our findings suggest that tenecteplase may confer therapeutic efficacy through mechanisms beyond proximal arterial reopening.</p> Trial registration <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05141305.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Clinical benefit of tenecteplase despite failed recanalization in late-window ischemic stroke: a post hoc analysis of the TRACE-3 trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月16日

查看全文
  • Zhengzhao Lu,
  • Ziran Wang,
  • Aoming Jin,
  • Fengyuan Che,
  • Lihua Wang,
  • Li Zhou,
  • Hongguo Dai,
  • Xintong Liu,
  • Zhixin Cao,
  • Liyuan Wang,
  • Manjun Hao,
  • Wanxing Ye,
  • Yunyun Xiong,
  • Yongjun Wang

摘要

Background

The TRACE-3 trial established the efficacy of intravenous tenecteplase for patients with acute ischemic stroke and large vessel occlusion in the late time window. It remains unclear whether intravenous tenecteplase confers clinical benefits specifically in the subpopulation of patients who did not achieve successful large vessel recanalization.

Methods

This is a post-hoc analysis of the TRACE-3 trial, a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing tenecteplase with standard medical therapy in patients with large vessel occlusion between 4.5 and 24 h of symptom onset. The analysis included participants who had failed recanalization (defined as an Arterial Occlusive Lesion [AOL] score of 0) on follow-up angiography at 24 h. Primary outcome of current study was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0–2) at 90 days. We assessed effect modification by baseline characteristics, including stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS]) and collateral circulation status.

Results

Among 288 patients with failed recanalization (123 in the tenecteplase group and 165 in the control group), tenecteplase was associated with a significantly higher rate of functional independence at 90 days compared with standard medical therapy (42.3% vs. 29.7%; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1.37, 95% CI [Confidence Interval] 1.00–1.86, P = 0.048). Tenecteplase also resulted in greater reduction in NIHSS scores at 7 days (adjusted β 0.31, P = 0.028). A significant interaction was observed between treatment effect and baseline stroke severity (P for interaction = 0.02). The benefit of tenecteplase was significant in patients with moderate-to-severe stroke (NIHSS ≥ 10; RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30–5.79) but not significant in those with minor-to-moderate stroke (NIHSS < 10). Collateral status did not significantly modify the treatment effect (P for interaction = 0.35).

Conclusions

In patients with ischemic stroke treated in the late time window, tenecteplase was associated with improved functional outcomes despite persistent large vessel occlusion. Our findings suggest that tenecteplase may confer therapeutic efficacy through mechanisms beyond proximal arterial reopening.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05141305.