↓ Skip to main content

Symptomatic Intracranial Hemorrhage With Tenecteplase vs Alteplase in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Neurology, July 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
178 X users
reddit
3 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Symptomatic Intracranial Hemorrhage With Tenecteplase vs Alteplase in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke
Published in
JAMA Neurology, July 2023
DOI 10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.1449
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) is a serious complication of stroke thrombolytic therapy. Many stroke centers have adopted 0.25-mg/kg tenecteplase instead of alteplase for stroke thrombolysis based on evidence from randomized comparisons to alteplase as well as for its practical advantages. There have been no significant differences in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) reported from randomized clinical trials or published case series for the 0.25-mg/Kg dose. To assess the risk of sICH following ischemic stroke in patients treated with tenecteplase compared to those treated with alteplase. This was a retrospective observational study using data from the large multicenter international Comparative Effectiveness of Routine Tenecteplase vs Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke (CERTAIN) collaboration comprising deidentified data on patients with ischemic stroke treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Data from more than 100 hospitals in New Zealand, Australia, and the US that used alteplase or tenecteplase for patients treated between July 1, 2018, and June 30, 2021, were included for analysis. Participating centers included a mix of nonthrombectomy- and thrombectomy-capacity comprehensive stroke centers. Standardized data were abstracted and harmonized from local or regional clinical registries. Consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke who were considered eligible and received thrombolysis at the participating stroke registries during the study period were included. All 9238 patients who received thrombolysis were included in this retrospective analysis. sICH was defined as clinical worsening of at least 4 points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), attributed to parenchymal hematoma, subarachnoid, or intraventricular hemorrhage. Differences between tenecteplase and alteplase in the risk of sICH were assessed using logistic regression, adjusted for age, sex, NIHSS score, and thrombectomy. Of the 9238 patients included in the analysis, the median (IQR) age was 71 (59-80) years, and 4449 patients (48%) were female. Tenecteplase was administered to 1925 patients. The tenecteplase group was older (median [IQR], 73 [61-81] years vs 70 [58-80] years; P < .001), more likely to be male (1034 of 7313 [54%] vs 3755 of 1925 [51%]; P < .01), had higher NIHSS scores (median [IQR], 9 [5-17] vs 7 [4-14]; P < .001), and more frequently underwent endovascular thrombectomy (38% vs 20%; P < .001). The proportion of patients with sICH was 1.8% for tenecteplase and 3.6% for alteplase (P < .001), with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.30-0.58; P < .01). Similar results were observed in both thrombectomy and nonthrombectomy subgroups. In this large study, ischemic stroke treatment with 0.25-mg/kg tenecteplase was associated with lower odds of sICH than treatment with alteplase. The results provide evidence supporting the safety of tenecteplase for stroke thrombolysis in real-world clinical practice.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 178 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 3 4%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Professor 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 46 65%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 17%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 49 69%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 134. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2025.
All research outputs
#394,246
of 34,593,328 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Neurology
#482
of 3,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,833
of 398,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Neurology
#16
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,593,328 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 78.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,859 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.