Reperfusion therapy for minor stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: Approximately, half of the acute stroke patients with minor symptoms were excluded from thrombolysis in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs). There is little evidence on treating minor strokes with rt-PA. Here, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in these patients.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched in July 2018. All available RCTs and retrospective comparative studies that compared thrombolysis with nonthrombolysis' for acute minor stroke (NIHSS ≤ 5) with quantitative outcomes were included.

Results: Ten studies, including a total of 4,333 patients, were identified. The risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) was higher in the rt-PA group as compared with that in the non-rt-PA group (3.8% vs. 0.6%; p = .0001). However, there is no significant difference in the rate of mortality between the two groups (p = .96). The pooled rate of a good outcome in 90 days was 67.8% in those with rt-PA and 63.3% in those without rt-PA (p = .07). Heterogeneity was 43% between the studies (p = .08). After adjusting for the heterogeneity, thrombolysis was associated with good outcome (68.3% vs. 63.0%, OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.14-1.89; p = .003). In post hoc analyses, including only RCTs, the pooled rate of good outcome had no significant differences between the two groups (86.6% vs. 85.7%, 95% CI 0.44-3.17, p = .74; 87.4% vs. 91.9%, 95% CI 0.35-1.41, p = .32; before and after adjusting separately).

Conclusions: Although thrombolysis might increase the risk of ICH based on existing studies, patients with acute minor ischemic stroke could still benefit from thrombolysis at 3 months from the onset.