User login
Transition to Tenecteplase From t-PA for Acute Ischemic Stroke at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
Tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) has been the standard IV thrombolytic used in acute ischemic stroke treatment since its US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1995. Trials have established this drug’s efficacy in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke and the appropriate patient population for therapy.1-3 Published guidelines and experiences have made clear that a written protocol with extensive personnel training is important to deliver this care properly.4
Tenecteplase has been available for use in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and studied in acute ischemic strokes since 2000. Recent large multicenter trials have suggested tenecteplase may work better than t-PA in the recanalization of large vessel occlusions (LVOs) and have provided guidance on proper dosing in acute ischemic stroke victims.5-8 Compared with t-PA, tenecteplase has a longer half-life, is more fibrin specific (causing less coagulopathy), and is more resistant to endogenous plasminogen activator inhibitor.9,10 Using tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke is simpler as a single dose bolus rather than a bolus followed by a 1-hour infusion with t-PA. Immediate mechanical thrombectomy for LVO is less complicated without the 1-hour t-PA infusion.5,6 Tenecteplase use also allows for nonthrombectomy hospitals to accelerate transfer times for patients who need thrombectomy following thrombolysis by eliminating the need for critical care nurse–staffed ambulances for interfacility transfer.11 Tenecteplase also is cheaper: Tenecteplase costs $3748 per vial, whereas t-PA costs $5800 per vial equating to roughly a $2000 savings per patient.12,13 Finally, the pharmacy formulary is simplified by using a single thrombolytic agent for both cardiac and neurologic emergencies.
Tenecteplase does have some drawbacks to consider. Currently, tenecteplase is not approved by the FDA for the indication of acute ischemic stroke, though the drug is endorsed by the American Heart Association stroke guidelines of 2019 as an alternative to t-PA.14 There is no stroke-specific preparation of the drug, leading to potential dosing errors. Therefore, a systematic process to safely transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke was undertaken at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. Here, we report the process required in making a complex switch in thrombolytic medication along with the potential benefits of making this transition.
OBSERVATIONS
The process to implement tenecteplase required extensive training and education for staff physicians, nurses, pharmacists, radiologists, trainees, and the rapid response team. Our institution administered IV thrombolytic drugs up to 25 times annually to acute ischemic stroke victims, meaning we had to train personnel extensively and repeatedly.
In preparation for the transition to tenecteplase, hospital leadership gathered staff for multidisciplinary administrative meetings that included neurology, emergency medicine, intensive care, pharmacy, radiology, and nursing departments. The purpose of these meetings was to establish a standard operating procedure (SOP) to ensure a safe transition. This process began in May 2020 and involved regular meetings to draft and revise our SOP. Additionally, several leadership and training sessions were held over a 6-month period. Stroke boxes were developed that contained the required evaluation tools, consent forms, medications (tenecteplase and treatments for known complications), dosing cards, and instructions. Final approval of the updated acute ischemic stroke hospital policy was obtained in November 2020 and signed by the above departments.
All inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined to be the same for tenecteplase as they were for t-PA with the notable exception that the WAKE-UP trial protocol would not be supported until further evidence became available.9 The results of the WAKE-UP trial had previously been used at WRNMMC to justify administration of t-PA in patients who awoke with symptoms of acute ischemic stroke, the last known well was unclear or > 4.5 hours, and for whom a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain could be obtained rapidly. Based on the WAKE-UP trial, if the MRI scan of the brain in these patients demonstrated restricted diffusion without fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal changes (diffusion-weighted [DWI]-FLAIR mismatch sign), this indicated that the stroke had likely occurred recently, and it was safe to administer t-PA. This allowed for administration of t-PA outside the standard treatment window of 4.5 hours from last known well, especially in the cases of patients who awoke with symptoms.
Since safety data are not yet available for the use of tenecteplase in this fashion, the WAKE-UP trial protocol was not used as an inclusion criterion. The informed consent form was modified, and the following scenarios were outlined: (1) If the patient or surrogate is immediately available to consent, paper consent will be documented with the additional note that tenecteplase is being used off-label; and (2) If the patient cannot consent and a surrogate is not immediately available, the medicine will be used emergently as long as the neurology resident and attending physicians agree.15
Risk mitigation was considered carefully. The stroke box described above is stocked and maintained by the pharmacy as we have transitioned to using designated pharmacists for the storage and preparation of tenecteplase. We highly recommend the use of designated pharmacists or emergency department pharmacists in this manner to avoid dosing errors.7,16 Since the current pharmacy-provided tenecteplase bottle contains twice the maximum dose indicated for ischemic stroke, only a 5 mL syringe is included in the stroke box to ensure a maximum dose of 25 mg is drawn up after reconstitution. Dosing card charts were made like existing dosing card charts for t-PA to quickly calculate the 0.25 mg/kg dose. In training, the difference in dosing in ischemic stroke was emphasized. Finally, pharmacy has taken responsibility for dosing the medication during stroke codes.
Any medical personnel at WRNMMC can initiate a stroke code by sending a page to the neurology consult service (Figure). 
TRANSITION AND RESULTS
From November 2020 to December 2021, 10 patients have been treated in total at WRNMMC (Table). 
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke. The successful transition required months of preparation involving multidisciplinary meetings between neurology, nursing, pharmacy, radiology, rapid response teams, critical care, and emergency medicine departments. Safeguards must be implemented to avoid a tenecteplase dosing error that can lead to potentially life-threatening adverse effects. The results at WRNMMC thus far are promising for safety and efficacy. Several process improvements are planned: a hospital-wide overhead page will accompany the direct page to neurology; other team members, including radiology and pharmacy, will be included on the acute stroke alert; and a stroke-specific paging application will be implemented to better track real-time stroke metrics and improve flow. These measures mirror processes that are occurring in institutions that treat acute stroke patients.
1. Lees KR, Bluhmki E, von Kummer R, et al. Time to treatment with intravenous alteplase and outcome in stroke: an updated pooled analysis of ECASS, ATLANTIS, NINDS, and EPITHET trials. Lancet. 2010;375(9727):1695-1703. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60491-6
2. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(24):1581- 1587. doi:10.1056/NEJM199512143332401
3. Hacke W, Donnan G, Fieschi C, et al. Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt-PA stroke trials. Lancet. 2004;363(9411):768-774. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15692-4
4. Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP Jr, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44(3):870-947. doi:10.1161/STR.0b013e318284056a
5. Campbell B, Mitchell P, Churilov L, et al. Tenecteplase versus alteplase before thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(17):1573-1582. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1716405
6. Yang P, Zhang Y, Zhang L, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy with or without intravenous alteplase in acute stroke. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):1981-1993. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001123
7. Menon BK, Buck BH, Singh N, et al. Intravenous tenecteplase compared with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke in Canada (AcT): a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, registry-linked, randomised, controlled, noninferiority trial. Lancet. 2022;400(10347):161-169. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01054-6
8. Campbell BCV, Mitchell PJ, Churilov L, et al. Effect of intravenous tenecteplase dose on cerebral reperfusion before thrombectomy in patients with large vessel occlusion ischemic stroke: the EXTEND-IA TNK part 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323(13):1257- 1265. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1511
9. Warach SJ, Dula AN, Milling TJ Jr. Tenecteplase thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2020;51(11):3440- 3451. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029749
10. Huang X, Moreton FC, Kalladka D, et al. Coagulation and fibrinolytic activity of tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2015;46(12):3543-3546. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011290
11. Burgos AM, Saver JL. Evidence that tenecteplase is noninferior to alteplase for acute ischemic stroke: meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials. Stroke. 2019;50(8):2156-2162. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025080
12. Potla N, Ganti L. Tenecteplase vs. alteplase for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review. Int J Emerg Med. 2022;15(1). doi:10.1186/s12245-021-00399-w
13. Warach SJ, Winegar A, Ottenbacher A, Miller C, Gibson D. Abstract WMP52: reduced hospital costs for ischemic stroke treated with tenecteplase. Stroke. 2022;53(suppl 1):AWMP52. doi:10.1161/str.53.suppl_1.WMP52
14. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, et al. Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2019;50(12):e344-e418. doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000211
15. Faris H, Dewar B, Dowlatshahi D, et al. Ethical justification for deferral of consent in the AcT trial for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2022;53(7):2420-2423. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.122.038760
16. Kvistad CE, Næss H, Helleberg BH, et al. Tenecteplase versus alteplase for the management of acute ischaemic stroke in Norway (NOR-TEST 2, part A): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Neurol. 2022;21(6):511-519. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00124-7
Tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) has been the standard IV thrombolytic used in acute ischemic stroke treatment since its US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1995. Trials have established this drug’s efficacy in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke and the appropriate patient population for therapy.1-3 Published guidelines and experiences have made clear that a written protocol with extensive personnel training is important to deliver this care properly.4
Tenecteplase has been available for use in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and studied in acute ischemic strokes since 2000. Recent large multicenter trials have suggested tenecteplase may work better than t-PA in the recanalization of large vessel occlusions (LVOs) and have provided guidance on proper dosing in acute ischemic stroke victims.5-8 Compared with t-PA, tenecteplase has a longer half-life, is more fibrin specific (causing less coagulopathy), and is more resistant to endogenous plasminogen activator inhibitor.9,10 Using tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke is simpler as a single dose bolus rather than a bolus followed by a 1-hour infusion with t-PA. Immediate mechanical thrombectomy for LVO is less complicated without the 1-hour t-PA infusion.5,6 Tenecteplase use also allows for nonthrombectomy hospitals to accelerate transfer times for patients who need thrombectomy following thrombolysis by eliminating the need for critical care nurse–staffed ambulances for interfacility transfer.11 Tenecteplase also is cheaper: Tenecteplase costs $3748 per vial, whereas t-PA costs $5800 per vial equating to roughly a $2000 savings per patient.12,13 Finally, the pharmacy formulary is simplified by using a single thrombolytic agent for both cardiac and neurologic emergencies.
Tenecteplase does have some drawbacks to consider. Currently, tenecteplase is not approved by the FDA for the indication of acute ischemic stroke, though the drug is endorsed by the American Heart Association stroke guidelines of 2019 as an alternative to t-PA.14 There is no stroke-specific preparation of the drug, leading to potential dosing errors. Therefore, a systematic process to safely transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke was undertaken at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. Here, we report the process required in making a complex switch in thrombolytic medication along with the potential benefits of making this transition.
OBSERVATIONS
The process to implement tenecteplase required extensive training and education for staff physicians, nurses, pharmacists, radiologists, trainees, and the rapid response team. Our institution administered IV thrombolytic drugs up to 25 times annually to acute ischemic stroke victims, meaning we had to train personnel extensively and repeatedly.
In preparation for the transition to tenecteplase, hospital leadership gathered staff for multidisciplinary administrative meetings that included neurology, emergency medicine, intensive care, pharmacy, radiology, and nursing departments. The purpose of these meetings was to establish a standard operating procedure (SOP) to ensure a safe transition. This process began in May 2020 and involved regular meetings to draft and revise our SOP. Additionally, several leadership and training sessions were held over a 6-month period. Stroke boxes were developed that contained the required evaluation tools, consent forms, medications (tenecteplase and treatments for known complications), dosing cards, and instructions. Final approval of the updated acute ischemic stroke hospital policy was obtained in November 2020 and signed by the above departments.
All inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined to be the same for tenecteplase as they were for t-PA with the notable exception that the WAKE-UP trial protocol would not be supported until further evidence became available.9 The results of the WAKE-UP trial had previously been used at WRNMMC to justify administration of t-PA in patients who awoke with symptoms of acute ischemic stroke, the last known well was unclear or > 4.5 hours, and for whom a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain could be obtained rapidly. Based on the WAKE-UP trial, if the MRI scan of the brain in these patients demonstrated restricted diffusion without fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal changes (diffusion-weighted [DWI]-FLAIR mismatch sign), this indicated that the stroke had likely occurred recently, and it was safe to administer t-PA. This allowed for administration of t-PA outside the standard treatment window of 4.5 hours from last known well, especially in the cases of patients who awoke with symptoms.
Since safety data are not yet available for the use of tenecteplase in this fashion, the WAKE-UP trial protocol was not used as an inclusion criterion. The informed consent form was modified, and the following scenarios were outlined: (1) If the patient or surrogate is immediately available to consent, paper consent will be documented with the additional note that tenecteplase is being used off-label; and (2) If the patient cannot consent and a surrogate is not immediately available, the medicine will be used emergently as long as the neurology resident and attending physicians agree.15
Risk mitigation was considered carefully. The stroke box described above is stocked and maintained by the pharmacy as we have transitioned to using designated pharmacists for the storage and preparation of tenecteplase. We highly recommend the use of designated pharmacists or emergency department pharmacists in this manner to avoid dosing errors.7,16 Since the current pharmacy-provided tenecteplase bottle contains twice the maximum dose indicated for ischemic stroke, only a 5 mL syringe is included in the stroke box to ensure a maximum dose of 25 mg is drawn up after reconstitution. Dosing card charts were made like existing dosing card charts for t-PA to quickly calculate the 0.25 mg/kg dose. In training, the difference in dosing in ischemic stroke was emphasized. Finally, pharmacy has taken responsibility for dosing the medication during stroke codes.
Any medical personnel at WRNMMC can initiate a stroke code by sending a page to the neurology consult service (Figure).
TRANSITION AND RESULTS
From November 2020 to December 2021, 10 patients have been treated in total at WRNMMC (Table).
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke. The successful transition required months of preparation involving multidisciplinary meetings between neurology, nursing, pharmacy, radiology, rapid response teams, critical care, and emergency medicine departments. Safeguards must be implemented to avoid a tenecteplase dosing error that can lead to potentially life-threatening adverse effects. The results at WRNMMC thus far are promising for safety and efficacy. Several process improvements are planned: a hospital-wide overhead page will accompany the direct page to neurology; other team members, including radiology and pharmacy, will be included on the acute stroke alert; and a stroke-specific paging application will be implemented to better track real-time stroke metrics and improve flow. These measures mirror processes that are occurring in institutions that treat acute stroke patients.
Tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) has been the standard IV thrombolytic used in acute ischemic stroke treatment since its US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1995. Trials have established this drug’s efficacy in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke and the appropriate patient population for therapy.1-3 Published guidelines and experiences have made clear that a written protocol with extensive personnel training is important to deliver this care properly.4
Tenecteplase has been available for use in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and studied in acute ischemic strokes since 2000. Recent large multicenter trials have suggested tenecteplase may work better than t-PA in the recanalization of large vessel occlusions (LVOs) and have provided guidance on proper dosing in acute ischemic stroke victims.5-8 Compared with t-PA, tenecteplase has a longer half-life, is more fibrin specific (causing less coagulopathy), and is more resistant to endogenous plasminogen activator inhibitor.9,10 Using tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke is simpler as a single dose bolus rather than a bolus followed by a 1-hour infusion with t-PA. Immediate mechanical thrombectomy for LVO is less complicated without the 1-hour t-PA infusion.5,6 Tenecteplase use also allows for nonthrombectomy hospitals to accelerate transfer times for patients who need thrombectomy following thrombolysis by eliminating the need for critical care nurse–staffed ambulances for interfacility transfer.11 Tenecteplase also is cheaper: Tenecteplase costs $3748 per vial, whereas t-PA costs $5800 per vial equating to roughly a $2000 savings per patient.12,13 Finally, the pharmacy formulary is simplified by using a single thrombolytic agent for both cardiac and neurologic emergencies.
Tenecteplase does have some drawbacks to consider. Currently, tenecteplase is not approved by the FDA for the indication of acute ischemic stroke, though the drug is endorsed by the American Heart Association stroke guidelines of 2019 as an alternative to t-PA.14 There is no stroke-specific preparation of the drug, leading to potential dosing errors. Therefore, a systematic process to safely transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke was undertaken at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) in Bethesda, Maryland. Here, we report the process required in making a complex switch in thrombolytic medication along with the potential benefits of making this transition.
OBSERVATIONS
The process to implement tenecteplase required extensive training and education for staff physicians, nurses, pharmacists, radiologists, trainees, and the rapid response team. Our institution administered IV thrombolytic drugs up to 25 times annually to acute ischemic stroke victims, meaning we had to train personnel extensively and repeatedly.
In preparation for the transition to tenecteplase, hospital leadership gathered staff for multidisciplinary administrative meetings that included neurology, emergency medicine, intensive care, pharmacy, radiology, and nursing departments. The purpose of these meetings was to establish a standard operating procedure (SOP) to ensure a safe transition. This process began in May 2020 and involved regular meetings to draft and revise our SOP. Additionally, several leadership and training sessions were held over a 6-month period. Stroke boxes were developed that contained the required evaluation tools, consent forms, medications (tenecteplase and treatments for known complications), dosing cards, and instructions. Final approval of the updated acute ischemic stroke hospital policy was obtained in November 2020 and signed by the above departments.
All inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined to be the same for tenecteplase as they were for t-PA with the notable exception that the WAKE-UP trial protocol would not be supported until further evidence became available.9 The results of the WAKE-UP trial had previously been used at WRNMMC to justify administration of t-PA in patients who awoke with symptoms of acute ischemic stroke, the last known well was unclear or > 4.5 hours, and for whom a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain could be obtained rapidly. Based on the WAKE-UP trial, if the MRI scan of the brain in these patients demonstrated restricted diffusion without fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) signal changes (diffusion-weighted [DWI]-FLAIR mismatch sign), this indicated that the stroke had likely occurred recently, and it was safe to administer t-PA. This allowed for administration of t-PA outside the standard treatment window of 4.5 hours from last known well, especially in the cases of patients who awoke with symptoms.
Since safety data are not yet available for the use of tenecteplase in this fashion, the WAKE-UP trial protocol was not used as an inclusion criterion. The informed consent form was modified, and the following scenarios were outlined: (1) If the patient or surrogate is immediately available to consent, paper consent will be documented with the additional note that tenecteplase is being used off-label; and (2) If the patient cannot consent and a surrogate is not immediately available, the medicine will be used emergently as long as the neurology resident and attending physicians agree.15
Risk mitigation was considered carefully. The stroke box described above is stocked and maintained by the pharmacy as we have transitioned to using designated pharmacists for the storage and preparation of tenecteplase. We highly recommend the use of designated pharmacists or emergency department pharmacists in this manner to avoid dosing errors.7,16 Since the current pharmacy-provided tenecteplase bottle contains twice the maximum dose indicated for ischemic stroke, only a 5 mL syringe is included in the stroke box to ensure a maximum dose of 25 mg is drawn up after reconstitution. Dosing card charts were made like existing dosing card charts for t-PA to quickly calculate the 0.25 mg/kg dose. In training, the difference in dosing in ischemic stroke was emphasized. Finally, pharmacy has taken responsibility for dosing the medication during stroke codes.
Any medical personnel at WRNMMC can initiate a stroke code by sending a page to the neurology consult service (Figure).
TRANSITION AND RESULTS
From November 2020 to December 2021, 10 patients have been treated in total at WRNMMC (Table).
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the transition from t-PA to tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke. The successful transition required months of preparation involving multidisciplinary meetings between neurology, nursing, pharmacy, radiology, rapid response teams, critical care, and emergency medicine departments. Safeguards must be implemented to avoid a tenecteplase dosing error that can lead to potentially life-threatening adverse effects. The results at WRNMMC thus far are promising for safety and efficacy. Several process improvements are planned: a hospital-wide overhead page will accompany the direct page to neurology; other team members, including radiology and pharmacy, will be included on the acute stroke alert; and a stroke-specific paging application will be implemented to better track real-time stroke metrics and improve flow. These measures mirror processes that are occurring in institutions that treat acute stroke patients.
1. Lees KR, Bluhmki E, von Kummer R, et al. Time to treatment with intravenous alteplase and outcome in stroke: an updated pooled analysis of ECASS, ATLANTIS, NINDS, and EPITHET trials. Lancet. 2010;375(9727):1695-1703. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60491-6
2. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(24):1581- 1587. doi:10.1056/NEJM199512143332401
3. Hacke W, Donnan G, Fieschi C, et al. Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt-PA stroke trials. Lancet. 2004;363(9411):768-774. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15692-4
4. Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP Jr, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44(3):870-947. doi:10.1161/STR.0b013e318284056a
5. Campbell B, Mitchell P, Churilov L, et al. Tenecteplase versus alteplase before thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(17):1573-1582. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1716405
6. Yang P, Zhang Y, Zhang L, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy with or without intravenous alteplase in acute stroke. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):1981-1993. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001123
7. Menon BK, Buck BH, Singh N, et al. Intravenous tenecteplase compared with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke in Canada (AcT): a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, registry-linked, randomised, controlled, noninferiority trial. Lancet. 2022;400(10347):161-169. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01054-6
8. Campbell BCV, Mitchell PJ, Churilov L, et al. Effect of intravenous tenecteplase dose on cerebral reperfusion before thrombectomy in patients with large vessel occlusion ischemic stroke: the EXTEND-IA TNK part 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323(13):1257- 1265. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1511
9. Warach SJ, Dula AN, Milling TJ Jr. Tenecteplase thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2020;51(11):3440- 3451. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029749
10. Huang X, Moreton FC, Kalladka D, et al. Coagulation and fibrinolytic activity of tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2015;46(12):3543-3546. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011290
11. Burgos AM, Saver JL. Evidence that tenecteplase is noninferior to alteplase for acute ischemic stroke: meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials. Stroke. 2019;50(8):2156-2162. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025080
12. Potla N, Ganti L. Tenecteplase vs. alteplase for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review. Int J Emerg Med. 2022;15(1). doi:10.1186/s12245-021-00399-w
13. Warach SJ, Winegar A, Ottenbacher A, Miller C, Gibson D. Abstract WMP52: reduced hospital costs for ischemic stroke treated with tenecteplase. Stroke. 2022;53(suppl 1):AWMP52. doi:10.1161/str.53.suppl_1.WMP52
14. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, et al. Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2019;50(12):e344-e418. doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000211
15. Faris H, Dewar B, Dowlatshahi D, et al. Ethical justification for deferral of consent in the AcT trial for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2022;53(7):2420-2423. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.122.038760
16. Kvistad CE, Næss H, Helleberg BH, et al. Tenecteplase versus alteplase for the management of acute ischaemic stroke in Norway (NOR-TEST 2, part A): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Neurol. 2022;21(6):511-519. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00124-7
1. Lees KR, Bluhmki E, von Kummer R, et al. Time to treatment with intravenous alteplase and outcome in stroke: an updated pooled analysis of ECASS, ATLANTIS, NINDS, and EPITHET trials. Lancet. 2010;375(9727):1695-1703. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60491-6
2. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(24):1581- 1587. doi:10.1056/NEJM199512143332401
3. Hacke W, Donnan G, Fieschi C, et al. Association of outcome with early stroke treatment: pooled analysis of ATLANTIS, ECASS, and NINDS rt-PA stroke trials. Lancet. 2004;363(9411):768-774. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15692-4
4. Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP Jr, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44(3):870-947. doi:10.1161/STR.0b013e318284056a
5. Campbell B, Mitchell P, Churilov L, et al. Tenecteplase versus alteplase before thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(17):1573-1582. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1716405
6. Yang P, Zhang Y, Zhang L, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy with or without intravenous alteplase in acute stroke. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(21):1981-1993. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001123
7. Menon BK, Buck BH, Singh N, et al. Intravenous tenecteplase compared with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke in Canada (AcT): a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, registry-linked, randomised, controlled, noninferiority trial. Lancet. 2022;400(10347):161-169. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01054-6
8. Campbell BCV, Mitchell PJ, Churilov L, et al. Effect of intravenous tenecteplase dose on cerebral reperfusion before thrombectomy in patients with large vessel occlusion ischemic stroke: the EXTEND-IA TNK part 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323(13):1257- 1265. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1511
9. Warach SJ, Dula AN, Milling TJ Jr. Tenecteplase thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2020;51(11):3440- 3451. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029749
10. Huang X, Moreton FC, Kalladka D, et al. Coagulation and fibrinolytic activity of tenecteplase and alteplase in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2015;46(12):3543-3546. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011290
11. Burgos AM, Saver JL. Evidence that tenecteplase is noninferior to alteplase for acute ischemic stroke: meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials. Stroke. 2019;50(8):2156-2162. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025080
12. Potla N, Ganti L. Tenecteplase vs. alteplase for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review. Int J Emerg Med. 2022;15(1). doi:10.1186/s12245-021-00399-w
13. Warach SJ, Winegar A, Ottenbacher A, Miller C, Gibson D. Abstract WMP52: reduced hospital costs for ischemic stroke treated with tenecteplase. Stroke. 2022;53(suppl 1):AWMP52. doi:10.1161/str.53.suppl_1.WMP52
14. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, et al. Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2019;50(12):e344-e418. doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000211
15. Faris H, Dewar B, Dowlatshahi D, et al. Ethical justification for deferral of consent in the AcT trial for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2022;53(7):2420-2423. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.122.038760
16. Kvistad CE, Næss H, Helleberg BH, et al. Tenecteplase versus alteplase for the management of acute ischaemic stroke in Norway (NOR-TEST 2, part A): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Neurol. 2022;21(6):511-519. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00124-7