Thrombolysis for Wake-Up Stroke Versus Non-Wake-Up Unwitnessed Stroke: EOS Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND

Stroke with unknown time of onset can be categorized into 2 groups; wake-up stroke (WUS) and unwitnessed stroke with an onset time unavailable for reasons other than wake-up (non-wake-up unwitnessed stroke, non-WUS). We aimed to assess potential differences in the efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) between these subgroups.

METHODS

Patients with an unknown-onset stroke were evaluated using individual patient-level data of 2 randomized controlled trials (WAKE-UP [Efficacy and Safety of MRI-Based Thrombolysis in Wake-Up Stroke], THAWS [Thrombolysis for Acute Wake-Up and Unclear-Onset Strokes With Alteplase at 0.6 mg/kg]) comparing IVT with placebo or standard treatment from the EOS (Evaluation of Unknown-Onset Stroke Thrombolysis trial) data set. A favorable outcome was prespecified as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 1 at 90 days. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 22 to 36 hours and 90-day mortality. The IVT effect was compared between the treatment groups in the WUS and non-WUS with multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Six hundred thirty-four patients from 2 trials were analyzed; 542 had WUS (191 women, 272 receiving alteplase), and 92 had non-WUS (42 women, 43 receiving alteplase). Overall, no significant interaction was noted between the mode of onset and treatment effect (P value for interaction=0.796). In patients with WUS, the frequencies of favorable outcomes were 54.8% and 45.5% in the IVT and control groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.01-2.16]). Death occurred in 4.0% and 1.9%, respectively (P=0.162), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in 1.8% and 0.3%, respectively (P=0.194). In patients with non-WUS, no significant difference was observed in favorable outcomes relative to the control (37.2% versus 29.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.76 [0.58-5.37]). One death and one symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were reported in the IVT group, but none in the control.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the effect of IVT between patients with WUS and non-WUS. IVT showed a significant benefit in patients with WUS, while there was insufficient statistical power to detect a substantial benefit in the non-WUS subgroup.

REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: CRD42020166903.