ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Quantifying the amount of greater brain ischemia protection time with pre-hospital vs. in-hospital neuroprotective agent start.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. 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.
- Cerebrolysin after Endovascular Thrombectomy in Stroke: 12‑Month Functional Outcomes in a Propensity‑Matched Cohort.Translational stroke research · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of early neurological deterioration after intravenous thrombolysis for stroke: insights from a large multicenter study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study is to quantify the increase in brain-under-protection time that may be achieved with pre-hospital compared with the post-arrival start of neuroprotective therapy among patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy. In order to do this, a comparative analysis was performed of two randomized trials of neuroprotective agents: (1) pre-hospital strategy: Field administration of stroke therapy-magnesium (FAST-MAG) Trial; (2) in-hospital strategy: Efficacy and safety of nerinetide for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (ESCAPE-NA1) Trial. In the FAST-MAG trial, among 1,041 acute ischemic stroke patients, 44 were treated with endovascular reperfusion therapy (ERT), including 32 treated with both intravenous thrombolysis and ERT and 12 treated with ERT alone. In the ESCAPE-NA1 trial, among 1,105 acute ischemic stroke patients, 659 were treated with both intravenous thrombolysis and ERT, and 446 were treated with ERT alone. The start of the neuroprotective agent was sooner after onset with pre-hospital vs. in-hospital start: 45 m (IQR 38-56) vs. 122 m. The neuroprotective agent in FAST-MAG was started 8 min prior to ED arrival compared with 64 min after arrival in ESCAPE-NA1. Projecting modern endovascular workflows to FAST-MAG, the total time of "brain under protection" (neuroprotective agent start to reperfusion) was greater with pre-hospital than in-hospital start: 94 m (IQR 90-98) vs. 22 m. Initiating a neuroprotective agent in the pre-hospital setting enables a faster treatment start, yielding 72 min additional brain protection time for patients with acute ischemic stroke. These findings provide support for the increased performance of ambulance-based, pre-hospital treatment trials in the development of neuroprotective stroke therapies.
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.