Review Article
An Overview of Meta-Analyses of Endovascular Bridging Therapies for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Table 3
Efficacy outcomes of mRS score from the pooled data.
| | Author (year) | OR | 95% CI | value |
| | ET + IVT versus IVT: mRS score (0–6) | | Badhiwala et al. 2015 | 1.56 | 1.14–2.13 | 0.0005 | | Goyal et al. 2016 | 2.26 | 1.67–3.06 | 0.0001 | | Bush et al. 2016 | 2.47 | 1.92–3.18 | 0.0001 | | Campbell et al. 2016 | 2.4 | 1.8–3.0 | 0.0001 | | IAT versus IVT: mRS score (0-1) | | Lee et al. 2010 | 2.14 | 1.31–3.51 | 0.003 | | Fields et al. 2011 | 1.97 | 1.15–3.35 | 0.01 | | IAT versus IVT: mRS score (0–2) | | Lee et al. 2010 | 2.05 | 1.33–3.14 | 0.001 | | Fields et al. 2011 | 1.86 | 1.15–2.99 | 0.01 | | EBT versus IVT: Fargen et al. 2015 | | mRS score (0-1) | 1.22 | 0.97–1.53 | 0.09 | | mRS score (0–2) | 1.27 | 1.04–1.54 | 0.018 | | mRS score (0–3) | 1.25 | 1.04–1.51 | 0.019 |
|
|
EBT: endovascular bridging therapies; ET: endovascular thrombectomy; IAT: intra-arterial pharmacologic thrombolysis; IVT: intravenous rt-PA; mRS: modified Rankin scale; OR: odds ratio; and 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.
|
