Observational studyJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2014
Acute ischemic stroke patients with diabetes should not be excluded from intravenous thrombolysis.
Observational study in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intracranial Bleeding After Reperfusion Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Review
- The telestroke and thrombolysis therapy in diabetic stroke patients.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The benefit of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) has been questioned for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in cases of acute ischemic stroke (IS). Our objective was to analyze the differences in outcome according to prior diagnosis of DM and the use or not of IVT. Observational study with inclusion of consecutive IS patients admitted to an stroke unit. Demographic data, vascular risk factors, comorbidity, stroke severity and 3-month follow-up outcome (modified Rankin Scale) were compared according to prior diagnosis of DM and the use or not of IVT. A total of 1,139 IS patients were admitted; 283 (24.8%) patients had a diagnosis of DM, and 261 were IVT treated (23.2% of the group without DM and 21.9% of the DM group). The IVT-treated patients with DM were older, had more comorbidities and had higher glucose levels on admission than those without DM and than IVT-treated patients. No significant differences in stroke severity, hemorrhagic transformation, in-hospital mortality or outcome at 3 months were found. The logistic regression analysis showed that stroke severity was associated with a higher risk of a poor outcome in IVT-treated patients, with no significant effect from DM after adjustment for confounders. Moreover, IVT was independently associated with a lower risk of poor outcome in DM patients (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.31-0.76; P = .002). DM patients should not be excluded from IVT, because DM is not associated with a poor outcome after IVT and this treatment is clearly beneficial for DM patients as compared with DM patients not treated with IVT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25002340What 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.