ReviewFrontiers in neurology2014
Clinical Outcome after Intra-Arterial Stroke Therapy in the Very Elderly: Why is it so Heterogeneous?
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors of Catastrophic Outcome after Endovascular Thrombectomy in Elderly Patients with Acute Anterior Circulation Stroke.Korean journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Factors influencing the implementation of Home-Based Stroke Rehabilitation: Professionals' perspective.PloS one · 2019Article
- Impact of Baseline Ischemia on Outcome in Older Patients Undergoing Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Very elderly patients (i.e., ≥80 years) are disproportionally affected by acute ischemic stroke. They account for a third of hospital stroke admissions, but two-thirds of overall stroke-related morbidity and mortality. There is some evidence of clinical benefit in treating selected very elderly patients with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). For very elderly patients ineligible or non-responsive to IVT, intra-arterial therapy (IAT) may have promise in improving clinical outcome. However, its unequivocal efficacy in the general population remains to be proven in randomized trials. Small cohort studies reveal that the rate of good clinical outcome for very elderly patients after IAT is highly variable, ranging from 0 to 28%. In addition, they experience higher rates of futile reperfusion than younger patients. Thus, it is imperative to understand the factors that impact on clinical outcome in very elderly patients after IAT. The aim of this review is to examine the factors that may be responsible for the heterogeneous clinical response of the very elderly to IAT. This will allow the reader to integrate the current available evidence to individualize intra-arterial stroke therapy in very elderly patients. Placing emphasis on pre-stroke independent living, smaller infarct core size, short procedure times, and avoiding general anesthesia where feasible, will help improve rates of good clinical outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.