PEARL
(2025)Objective
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intra-arterial alteplase (IA-tPA) after mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke and successful reperfusion.
Study Summary
Intervention
Intra-arterial alteplase (0.225 mg/kg, max 20 mg) vs standard post-thrombectomy care without IA thrombolytics.
Inclusion Criteria
Acute ischemic stroke patients within 24 hours of last known well, NIHSS 6β25, ASPECTS β₯6, occlusion of terminal ICA, M1, or M2 segment, stable eTICI 2b50β3 post-thrombectomy, pre-stroke mRS β€1.
Study Design
Arms: IA-tPA (n=164) vs Standard Treatment (n=160)
Patients per Arm: IA-tPA: 164, Control: 160
Outcome
Bottom Line
The PEARL study is designed to test the superiority of intra-arterial alteplase after mechanical thrombectomy over standard medical treatment alone for acute ischemic stroke, hypothesizing that it will improve neurological recovery without significantly increasing the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage or mortality.
Major Points
- The PEARL study is a multicenter, prospective, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomized controlled trial in China.
- The trial will compare intra-arterial alteplase plus standard medical treatment to standard medical treatment alone after mechanical thrombectomy.
- The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with a 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1, indicating an excellent outcome.
- The study aims to enroll 324 participants, with 162 in each group, to test for superiority.
- The study's primary strength is its rigorous randomized design, which is intended to provide high-level evidence for a Chinese population, filling a gap in existing research.
- A key limitation is that the findings may have limited generalizability to other ethnic groups due to the study population being predominantly Han Chinese.
- The open-label design is a limitation, but blinding of outcome assessors and statisticians is intended to mitigate this bias.
Study Design
- Study Type
- Multicentre, prospective, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomized controlled trial.
- Randomization
- Yes
- Blinding
- Outcome assessors and statistical analysts will be unaware of group allocation.
- Sample Size
- 324
- Follow-up
- 90 days.
- Centers
- 28
- Countries
- China
Primary Outcome
Definition: Proportion of patients with a 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0-1.
| Control | Intervention | HR/OR | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40.4% (based on the CHOICE study, a previous trial). | Expected 16% improvement over the control group. | - | - |
Limitations & Criticisms
- The 16% superiority margin used for sample size estimation may be overly optimistic, potentially leading to an underpowered study if the actual effect size is smaller.
- The study's focus on a Chinese population may limit the generalizability of the findings to other ethnic groups or regions.
- The open-label design could introduce bias, despite the use of blinded outcome adjudicators.
Citation
BMJ Open 2024:14:e091059. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091059