ArticleBrain and behavior2020
Benefit and risk of early intravenous heparin after thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Dietary Fiber Intake With Myocardial Infarction and Stroke Events in US Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study of NHANES 2011-2018.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Benefit and risk of early intravenous heparin after thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke.Brain and behavior · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeWe performed a retrospective analysis of the "Thrombolysis Implementation and Monitor of Acute Ischemic Stroke in China (TIMS-China)" registry to explore the benefit and risk of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) followed by intravenous heparin (IVH) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients.
methodsIn the TIMS-China database, the patients who received IVH immediately after IVT (Early IVH group) and those who initiated antithrombotic therapy (ATT) until 24 hr after IVT (Standard ATT group) were screened for this comparison. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed between both groups. The logistic regression analysis was performed in the matched population to compare all the efficacy and safety outcomes.
resultsOf 1,437 patients in this study, 119 received early IVH and 1,318 cases initiated standard ATT. After PS matching (1:2), 117 pairs were identified. The early IVH group had higher proportions of neurological improvement at 24 hr (OR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.42-3.53) and 7 days (OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.22-3.03), better chance of excellent recovery (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.07-2.67) and functional independence (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.13-2.78) at 90 days, and a lower 90-day mortality (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.21-0.92) than standard ATT group. Additionally, early IVH did not increase the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.34-2.48).
conclusionsIVH immediately after thrombolysis seems to be safe and potentially more effective as compared with standard ATT delay of 24 hr for a subset of AIS patients.
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.