Effectiveness and safety of bridging therapy and endovascular therapy in patients with large cerebral infarctions: from ANGEL-ASPECT

Background and purpose The benefits of thrombolytic therapy before endovascular thrombectomy in cases of acute ischaemic stroke, with a large infarction volume, remain unclear. This analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of bridging therapy and endovascular therapy among patients with large cerebral infarctions. Methods In this post-hoc analysis of the multicentre prospective study of ANGEL-ASPECT (Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients with a Large Infarct Core), participants were divided into two groups: an endovascular therapy group and a bridging therapy group. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days. The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage. Ordinal logistic regression was performed to compare the primary endpoint between the two groups. Subgroup analyses were conducted to further explore potential risk factors associated with the outcomes. Results 122 patients were included, of whom 77 (63%) underwent endovascular therapy and 45 (37%) underwent bridging therapy. The median scores on mRS at 90 days of the bridging therapy group and the endovascular therapy group were 3 (2–5) and 4 (2–6), with no significant differences (common OR 1.36; 95% CI 0.71 to 2.61). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was reported in three patients who were in the endovascular and bridging therapy groups (relative risk (RR) 1.71; 95% CI 0.36 to 8.12). The mortality between two groups did not differ (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.54). Conclusions Our study indicated that endovascular therapy alone might be a viable option for patients with large cerebral infarctions, displaying no noticeable disparity in outcomes compared with bridging therapy.