ArticleThe Ulster medical journal2018
ESCAPE to Reality, Post-Trial Outcomes in an ESCAPE Centre: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.
Article in The Ulster medical journal, 2018. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Neurodisparity Index of Nationwide Access to Neurological Health Care in Northern Ireland.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Country-Wide Analysis of Systemic Factors Associated With Acute Ischemic Stroke Door to Needle Time.Frontiers in neurology · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast provides the regional neuroendovascular service for Northern Ireland and was an enrolling centre for the ESCAPE endovascular stroke trial. Our aim was to assess outcomes for patients presenting with acute stroke following discontinuation of trial enrolment at our centre.
methodsWe collected data on all patients presenting with acute stoke between Nov-1st-2014 and Oct-31st-2015 who received endovascular treatment or received IV thrombolysis (IV-tPA) alone. ESCAPE eligibility of each patient was assessed. Primary outcome was modified Rankin Score (mRS) at 3 months.
results129 patients presented with acute stoke symptoms during the time period; 56/129 (43.4%) patients in the intervention group and 73/129 (56.5%) patients in the control group. In the interventional group, 42/56 (75%) were considered ESCAPE eligible and 14/56 (25%) were considered ESCAPE ineligible. 30/42 (71.4%) ESCAPE eligible patients had a positive functional outcome at 3 months compared to 9/14 (64.2%) ESCAPE ineligible patients. In the control group, 37 (50.7%) had identifiable thrombotic occlusion and 13/37 (35.1%) were considered eligible for intervention. 4/13 (30.8%) achieved functional independence (mRS<3) at 3 months.There was a statistically significant difference in functional independence in those who underwent endovascular therapy compared to the control group (p= 0.04).
conclusionESCAPE eligible patients in our centre had favourable outcome rates superior to the published trial data. ESCAPE ineligible patients tended to do slightly less well, but still better than the favourable outcome rates achieved with IVtPA alone. There is potentially a wide discordance between the threshold for futility and trial eligibility criteria when considering endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29588552PMC5849948W3023380658What 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.