Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Tenecteplase before EVT shows no functional benefit over EVT alone in late window strokeTenecteplase before clot removal did not improve stroke outcomes in this trial

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Tenecteplase before EVT did not improve functional independence vs EVT alone in late-window stroke patients.

This phase 3 randomized clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of intravenous tenecteplase administered before endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in adults with acute ischemic stroke presenting 4.5 to 24 hours after last known well. Eligible patients had a proximal middle cerebral artery (MCA-M1 or proximal M2) occlusion with salvageable brain tissue, defined by an ischemic core volume <70 mL, mismatch ratio ≥1.8, and mismatch volume ≥15 mL. The study enrolled 391 patients across 40 centers in China, randomizing them to receive either tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg, max 25 mg) followed by EVT or EVT alone.

The primary outcome was functional independence, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 at 90 days. Results showed no significant difference between groups: 44.2% in the tenecteplase-before-EVT group achieved functional independence versus 43.2% in the EVT-alone group. The adjusted relative rate was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.83–1.24; P = .89), indicating no improvement. Absolute numbers were 88/199 versus 83/192, respectively.

Secondary outcomes included mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Mortality within 90 days was 12.7% in the tenecteplase group versus 14.2% in the EVT-alone group (25/197 vs. 27/190). sICH within 36 hours occurred in 5.1% of the tenecteplase group versus 2.6% of the EVT-alone group (10/197 vs. 5/190). These differences were not statistically tested in the provided data, but the higher sICH rate with tenecteplase warrants attention.

Safety findings highlighted symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and death as adverse events. The study did not report discontinuations or overall tolerability. Limitations were not specified in the input, but potential constraints include the single-country setting, which may limit generalizability, and the absence of reported funding or conflicts.

Practice relevance is clear: for patients presenting to EVT-capable centers 4.5 to 24 hours after stroke onset with proximal MCA occlusion, intravenous tenecteplase before EVT did not improve clinical outcomes compared to EVT alone. This suggests that in this specific late-window population, the added thrombolytic may not be beneficial and could increase hemorrhage risk.

Causality and certainty notes were not reported, so the evidence should be interpreted with caution. The trial's phase 3 design and randomized methodology support internal validity, but external applicability may vary. Clinicians should weigh the lack of benefit against the potential for increased sICH when considering tenecteplase in this context.

In summary, this trial provides evidence that tenecteplase before EVT does not enhance functional independence in late-window ischemic stroke patients with salvageable tissue. The findings support current guidelines that emphasize EVT as the primary intervention in this population, with thrombolysis reserved for earlier windows or specific scenarios.

Stroke is a medical emergency that can leave people with lasting disability. Many patients arrive at hospitals with a blocked artery in the brain. Doctors often use a procedure called endovascular thrombectomy to remove the clot. This trial looked at whether giving a specific drug called tenecteplase before the procedure helps patients recover better. The study involved 391 adults who had an ischemic stroke between 4.5 and 24 hours after their last known normal moment. These patients had a blockage in a major artery in the brain and had some brain tissue that could still be saved. The research took place across 40 centers in China.

The researchers divided patients into two groups. One group received intravenous tenecteplase before the clot removal procedure. The other group received only the clot removal procedure. The main goal was to see if the drug helped patients achieve functional independence. This means being able to care for themselves and move around without major help. The team also tracked how many people died and how many had bleeding in the brain.

The results showed no clear benefit from adding the drug. At 90 days, 44.2 percent of patients in the drug group were functionally independent. In the group that had only the procedure, 43.2 percent reached the same level of recovery. The difference was very small and not statistically significant. The number of deaths was slightly lower in the drug group, but the difference was not reported as significant. However, the risk of bleeding in the brain was higher in the group that received the drug. About 5.1 percent had symptomatic bleeding compared to 2.6 percent in the other group.

Safety was a key concern because the drug increased the chance of bleeding. While the number of deaths did not rise significantly, the higher rate of bleeding is an important safety signal. The study did not report any other serious adverse events or reasons for stopping the treatment. Because the trial was limited to patients with a specific type of blockage and a specific time window, the results apply only to that group.

This single study suggests that adding tenecteplase before clot removal does not improve outcomes for patients with proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion. Patients and families should not expect better recovery from this specific combination. The findings do not change the standard of care for everyone, but they do suggest that this specific drug addition may not be necessary for this specific patient group. More research is needed to see if different doses or different patient groups might benefit. Until then, doctors will continue to weigh the risks and benefits carefully for each individual case.

What this means for you:
Adding tenecteplase before clot removal did not improve recovery and increased bleeding risk in this trial.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 391
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up216.0 mo
PublishedJun 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
IMPORTANCE: Whether intravenous tenecteplase prior to endovascular treatment (EVT) for ischemic stroke reduces disability in the late time window is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the adverse events and efficacy of tenecteplase prior to EVT in patients 4.5 to 24 hours after ischemic stroke onset due to proximal middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, phase 3, randomized, open-label, blinded end point, superiority trial conducted at 40 centers in China. Adult (≥18 years) patients with acute ischemic stroke 4.5 to 24 hours after last known to be well due to MCA-M1 or proximal M2 occlusion with salvageable brain tissue (ischemic core volume <70 mL, mismatch ratio ≥1.8, and mismatch volume ≥15 mL) identified on computed tomography-perfusion or magnetic resonance-perfusion-diffusion imaging were enrolled from January 25, 2024, through July 21, 2025, and followed up for 90 days. Final follow-up occurred on October 14, 2025. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg; maximum dose, 25 mg) before EVT (n = 199) or EVT alone (n = 192). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was functional independence, defined as a score of 0 to 2 on the modified Rankin Scale (range, 0-6, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at 90 days. Adverse events outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and death. RESULTS: All of the 391 patients enrolled (median age, 68 years [IQR, 59-75]; 155 [39.6%] females) completed the trial. Functional independence at 90 days occurred in 88 patients (44.2%) in the tenecteplase before EVT group and 83 patients (43.2%) in the EVT alone group (adjusted relative rate, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.83-1.24]; P = .89; risk difference, 0.99% [95% CI, -8.84% to 10.83%]). Mortality within 90 days was 12.7% (25/197) in the tenecteplase before EVT group and 14.2% (27/190) in the EVT alone group. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours was 5.1% (10/197) and 2.6% (5/190), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients presenting to EVT-capable centers 4.5 to 24 hours after stroke onset with proximal MCA occlusion, intravenous tenecteplase before EVT did not improve clinical outcomes vs EVT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06221371.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.