BACKGROUND: Although thrombolysis is considered to be the first-line treatment for ischemic stroke, there remains an ongoing controversy on the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection (CAD). The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess observational data related to the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in CAD-related ischemic stroke. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the efficacy of thrombolysis treatment in CAD-related ischemic stroke with appropriate observational studies identified for the study. The meta-analysis models in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V2 software were applied to calculate the merged rates of favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale, mRS 0-2), excellent outcome (mRS 0-1), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH (SICH), mortality and recurrent stroke between thrombolysis and non-thrombolysis in CAD-related stroke. The difference of outcomes and adverse events between the 2 groups was compared by analyzing the pooled OR value and chi-square test using the software SPSS. RESULTS: A total of 846 patients were identified from 10 studies (174 with thrombolysis; 672 with non-thrombolysis). The meta-analysis detected no significant statistical difference in the proportion of CAD-related stroke patients enjoying a favorable outcome at the 3 months' follow-up between the thrombolysis and non-thrombolysis groups (53.7 vs. 58.2%, OR 0.782, x03C7;2 = 0.594, p > 0.05); non-thrombolysis was slightly superior than thrombolysis in terms of excellent outcome (52.4 vs. 34.4%, OR 0.489, x03C7;2 = 9.143, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in SICH, mortality and recurrent stroke rates between the 2 groups (all p > 0.05). ICH rate was higher in the thrombolysis group of CAD-related stroke patients compared to that in the non-thrombolysis group (12.3 vs. 7.4%, OR 2.647, x03C7;2 = 4.127, p = 0.042). CONCLUSION: Thrombolysis seems to be equally safe and will achieve an efficacy similar to the efficacy of non-thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to CAD. It is also as effective as thrombolysis in stroke from miscellaneous causes. Therefore, CAD patients experiencing a stroke should not be denied thrombolysis therapy. However, this will need to be confirmed in large-scale randomized studies, especially involving intravenous thrombolysis treatment.
BACKGROUND: Although thrombolysis is considered to be the first-line treatment for ischemic stroke, there remains an ongoing controversy on the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection (CAD). The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess observational data related to the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in CAD-related ischemic stroke. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the efficacy of thrombolysis treatment in CAD-related ischemic stroke with appropriate observational studies identified for the study. The meta-analysis models in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V2 software were applied to calculate the merged rates of favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale, mRS 0-2), excellent outcome (mRS 0-1), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH (SICH), mortality and recurrent stroke between thrombolysis and non-thrombolysis in CAD-related stroke. The difference of outcomes and adverse events between the 2 groups was compared by analyzing the pooled OR value and chi-square test using the software SPSS. RESULTS: A total of 846 patients were identified from 10 studies (174 with thrombolysis; 672 with non-thrombolysis). The meta-analysis detected no significant statistical difference in the proportion of CAD-related strokepatients enjoying a favorable outcome at the 3 months' follow-up between the thrombolysis and non-thrombolysis groups (53.7 vs. 58.2%, OR 0.782, x03C7;2 = 0.594, p > 0.05); non-thrombolysis was slightly superior than thrombolysis in terms of excellent outcome (52.4 vs. 34.4%, OR 0.489, x03C7;2 = 9.143, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in SICH, mortality and recurrent stroke rates between the 2 groups (all p > 0.05). ICH rate was higher in the thrombolysis group of CAD-related strokepatients compared to that in the non-thrombolysis group (12.3 vs. 7.4%, OR 2.647, x03C7;2 = 4.127, p = 0.042). CONCLUSION: Thrombolysis seems to be equally safe and will achieve an efficacy similar to the efficacy of non-thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to CAD. It is also as effective as thrombolysis in stroke from miscellaneous causes. Therefore, CAD patients experiencing a stroke should not be denied thrombolysis therapy. However, this will need to be confirmed in large-scale randomized studies, especially involving intravenous thrombolysis treatment.