https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index ${session.getAttribute("locale")} 5 https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:33102 15 mL, mismatch ratio > 1.8, baseline ischemic core < 70 mL, and volume of severely hypoperfused tissue < 100 mL). Patients meeting target mismatch criteria were analyzed as a subgroup to identify whether they had different treatment responses from the pooled group. Results: Of 146 pooled patients, 71 received alteplase and 75 received tenecteplase. Tenecteplase-Treated patients had greater early clinical improvement (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score change: Tenecteplase, 7; alteplase, 2; P=0.018) and less parenchymal hematoma (2 of 75 versus 10 of 71; P=0.02). The pooled group did not show improved patient outcomes when treated with tenecteplase (modified Rankin scale score 0-1: odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-3.51; P=0.102) compared with alteplase therapy. However, in patients with target mismatch (33 tenecteplase, 35 alteplase), treatment with tenecteplase was associated with greater early clinical improvement (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score change: Tenecteplase, 6; alteplase, 1; P < 0.001) and better late independent recovery (modified Rankin scale score 0-1: odds ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-5.94; P=0.032) than those treated with alteplase. Conclusions: Tenecteplase may offer an improved efficacy and safety profile compared with alteplase, benefits possibly exaggerated in patients with baseline computed tomography perfusion-defined target mismatch. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01472926. URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12608000466347.]]> Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:18:46 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:38851  15 mL, mismatch ratio > 1.8 and ischemic core < 70 mL). We then investigated whether tenecteplase-treated patients had favorable odds of less disability (on modified Rankin scale, mRS) compared to those treated with alteplase, for clinical and imaging mismatch, respectively. Results: From 146 pooled patients, 71 received alteplase and 75 received tenecteplase. The overall pooled group did not show improved patient outcomes when treated with tenecteplase (mRS 0-1 OR 1.77, 95% CI 0.89–3.51, p = 0.102) compared with alteplase. A total of 39 (27%) patients met both clinical and imaging mismatch criteria, 25 (17%) patients met only imaging criteria, 36 (25%) met only clinical mismatch criteria and, finally, 46 (31%) did not meet either of imaging or mismatch criteria. Patients treated with tenecteplase had more favorable outcomes when they met either imaging mismatch (mRS 0–1, OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.13–5.94, p = 0.032) or clinical mismatch criteria (mRS 0–1, OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.142, 8.732, p = 0.027) but with differing proportions. Conclusion: Target mismatch selection was more inclusive and exhibited in a larger treatment effect between tenecteplase and alteplase.]]> Wed 16 Feb 2022 15:17:26 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:33105 Thu 17 Mar 2022 14:41:28 AEDT ]]>