I think it’s very important to notice that the different trials, which have been published or presented so far, had different inclusion-exclusion criteria. The TECNO trial, which you mentioned, was specifically targeting people with incomplete reperfusion, whereas the other trials were focusing on people with nearly complete or complete reperfusion. And we strongly believe that this is a different setting...
I think it’s very important to notice that the different trials, which have been published or presented so far, had different inclusion-exclusion criteria. The TECNO trial, which you mentioned, was specifically targeting people with incomplete reperfusion, whereas the other trials were focusing on people with nearly complete or complete reperfusion. And we strongly believe that this is a different setting. So TECNO was not able to show a benefit in people with incomplete reperfusion, and therefore this should, intra-arterial thrombolysis should not be applied in routine clinical practice unless there is new evidence. Whereas it can be considered in people with complete or almost complete reperfusion, nevertheless there are still open questions and that was the reason why we wrote in our editorial that more data are urgently needed for this particular setting as well.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.