Improved Door-to-Needle Time After Implementation of Tenecteplase as the Preferred Thrombolytic for Acute Ischemic Stroke at a Large Community Teaching Hospital Emergency Department

<b>Background:</b> Acute ischemic stroke is a leading cause of death and long-term disability. To improve patient outcomes, timely restoration of blood flow to the ischemic brain tissue is vital. One reperfusion strategy includes the administration of thrombolytics. Historically, alteplase has been the thrombolytic of choice for acute ischemic stroke; however, given recent safety and efficacy data, tenecteplase has gained popularity due to its optimal pharmacokinetic profile. <b>Objectives:</b> This study compares outcomes between adult patients with acute ischemic stroke who received tenecteplase as the preferred thrombolytic versus alteplase. <b>Methods:</b> This was a single center, retrospective cohort study that included adult patients who received intravenous thrombolytic therapy, either tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg or alteplase 0.9 mg/kg, for acute ischemic stroke from May 2021 to December 2023. The primary outcome was door-to-needle time. Secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), any ICH on 24-hour follow-up imaging, major extracranial bleeding, and angioedema. Secondary efficacy outcomes included discharge with a favorable neurological outcome, discharge disposition, ICU length of stay, and overall length of stay. Secondary stroke metric times evaluated include door-to-computed tomography (CT) time, CT-to-needle time, neurologist notification-to-needle time, and thrombolytic decision-to-needle time. <b>Results:</b> Fifty patients were included in the alteplase group and 50 patients were included in the tenecteplase group. The primary outcome, door-to-needle time, was significantly shorter in the tenecteplase group (36 vs 30 minutes, <i>P</i> = .006). There were no statistically significant differences found in the secondary safety and efficacy outcomes. Patients who received tenecteplase experienced significantly faster CT-to-needle times (17 vs 11 minutes, <i>P</i> = .006), neurologist notification-to-needle times (32 vs 25 minutes, <i>P</i> = .001), and thrombolytic decision-to-needle times (9 vs 5 minutes, <i>P</i> < .001). <b>Conclusions:</b> In this retrospective, observational study, there was a statistically significant decrease in door-to-needle time with tenecteplase compared to alteplase. No significant differences in secondary safety and efficacy outcomes were observed.