Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Repeated intravenous thrombolysis shows non-significant trend toward better functional outcomes in recurrent acute ischemic strokeRepeated Thrombolysis Shows Potential for Recent Stroke Patients

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

Key Takeaway
Note that the interval from a previous stroke should not be an isolated exclusion criterion for intravenous thrombolysis.

This meta-analysis of individual patient data evaluates the efficacy and safety of repeated intravenous thrombolysis (RIVT) in patients experiencing a recurrent acute ischemic stroke (AIS) within 90 days of a previous IVT-treated stroke. The analysis included 63 patients to assess functional outcomes and safety markers like intracranial hemorrhage.

Regarding primary outcomes, the analysis reported a non-significant trend toward better functional outcomes (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.97-2.39; I = 0%), with 66.7% of patients achieving a favorable outcome. For secondary outcomes, there was no significant increase in functional deterioration between stroke episodes (OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.75-2.19; I = 0%).

Safety data indicated that 15.9% of patients experienced asymptomatic intracranial or systemic hemorrhages, while no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) occurred after RIVT. Fatal events occurred in 5% of patients but were noted as unrelated to neurological complications. The authors note that RIVT within 90 days is a rare event and efficacy remains understudied. These findings suggest that the interval from a previous stroke should not be considered an isolated exclusion criterion for IVT treatment.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis extends the evidence regarding intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. It specifically addresses the clinical scenario of recurrent stroke within 90 days of a previous treatment. This builds upon prior evidence that intravenous thrombolysis improves functional outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke after 4.5 hours, while providing specific data on the safety and efficacy of repeated administration in the context of recurrent events.

Researchers looked at the outcomes for patients who experienced a second acute ischemic stroke within 90 days of a previous stroke treated with thrombolysis. This is a rare occurrence, and the evidence for its effectiveness is currently limited. The study included 63 patients to see how they fared after receiving repeated treatment.

The results showed a positive trend toward better functional outcomes for these patients, with about 66.7% achieving a favorable result. However, this trend was not statistically significant. The study also found no significant increase in functional deterioration between the two stroke episodes, suggesting that the timing of the second stroke did not necessarily make the condition worse.

Regarding safety, 15.9% of patients experienced asymptomatic intracranial or systemic hemorrhages, but no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages occurred after the repeated treatment. While 5% of patients had fatal events, these were not related to neurological complications. Because this is a rare situation, these findings are preliminary and should not replace a doctor's guidance for specific treatment plans.

What this means for you:
Repeated thrombolysis shows a positive trend for recent strokes, but evidence is limited due to the rarity of the event.

Common questions

Is it safe to use thrombolysis for a second stroke shortly after the first?

The study found that no symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages occurred after repeated thrombolysis. While 15.9% of patients had asymptomatic intracranial or systemic hemorrhages, the fatal events recorded were not related to neurological complications. You should discuss the specific risks and benefits of this treatment with your medical team.

How effective is repeated thrombolysis for recent strokes?

The study showed a non-significant trend toward better functional outcomes for patients with a second stroke within 90 days. About 66.7% of patients in the study achieved a favorable outcome. Because this is a rare occurrence, the evidence for its effectiveness is currently limited.

Does the timing of a second stroke affect the patient's recovery?

The study found no significant increase in functional deterioration between stroke episodes for those treated within 90 days of a previous stroke. This suggests that the short time between strokes did not necessarily lead to worse outcomes in the group studied.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 63
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedSep 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Current stroke guidelines consider a previous acute ischemic stroke (AIS) within 3 months a relative contraindication to intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) because of the perceived risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH). The recommendation is largely based on expert consensus, while growing evidence suggests repeated IVT (RIVT) may be feasible in selected patients. AIMS: To systematically review the efficacy and safety of RIVT for recurrent AIS within 90 days of a previous IVT-treated stroke. RESULTS: We performed a systematic review and individual-patient data meta-analysis, including 28 reports (63 patients), with individual patient data available for 44 cases. Overall, 66.7% of patients achieved a favorable outcome, with a 7.5 days median interval between treatments. Meta-analysis showed a non-significant trend toward better functional outcomes after RIVT (pooled OR = 1.52, 95% CI 0.97-2.39; I = 0%) and no significant increase in functional deterioration between stroke episodes (pooled OR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.75-2.19; I = 0%). Outcomes were not influenced by treatment interval, age, sex, stroke etiology, vascular territory, or onset-to-treatment time. No sICH occurred after RIVT. Asymptomatic intracranial or systemic haemorrhages were reported in 15.9% of patients, while fatal events (5%) were unrelated to neurological complications. Haemorrhagic and fatal events occurred predominantly in patients with cardioembolic and more severe strokes. CONCLUSIONS: RIVT within 90 days is a rare event and its efficacy is understudied. It may be a reasonable reperfusion strategy in carefully selected patients with recurrent AIS, suggesting that the interval from the previous stroke should not be considered an isolated exclusion criterion for IVT.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

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