This study aims to document the transition from alteplase to tenecteplase within a rural stroke network in the Midwest. It emphasizes the planning and execution of the transition, and evaluates safety and outcomes of tenecteplase compared to alteplase one year after the adoption of the new thrombolytic.

This is a retrospective observational study of patients treated with thrombolytic therapy for suspected acute ischemic stroke at Southern Illinois Healthcare rural stroke network between July 2017 and July 2024. For each patient, demographics, past medical history, clinical presentation, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and laboratory values were reviewed. Type of thrombolytic was noted. Door-to-needle time (DTN) and complications of thrombolytic therapy including symptomatic ICH (sICH) were reviewed. The primary outcome was the rate of sICH after administration of thrombolytic therapy. Secondary outcomes included target DTN ≤ 60 minutes and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2 at 30 days.

Out of 279 patients treated with thrombolytics, 215 (77%) received alteplase, and 64 (23%) received tenecteplase. The two groups were severity matched, and did not differ in demographics or baseline comorbidities. Median DTN (IQR) was comparable between alteplase and tenecteplase, in minutes ((50 (40-69) vs. 53 (37-65)). In three distinct regression models for each of the predetermined outcomes, accounting for markers of stroke severity, type of thrombolytic was not associated with development of sICH (OR 1.59, SE 1.445, p=0.61), target DTN ≤60 min (OR 0.996, SE 0.304, p=0.988), nor mRS 0-2 at 30 days (OR 1.086, SE 0.446, p=0.842).

In our population, safety and outcome of thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke did not differ based on the type of thrombolytic used. Our study highlights the planning and execution of the transition from alteplase to tenecteplase, with challenges faced and lessons learned, and supports the use of tenecteplase in real-world rural practice.