ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2024
Improved visual outcomes of central retinal artery occlusion with local intra-arterial fibrinolysis beyond the conventional time window.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness and safety of superselective ophthalmic artery thrombolysis beyond 24h in central retinal artery occlusion.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- How retinal artery occlusion reveals moyamoya disease-a case series and descriptive study.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography (OCTA) Characteristics of Acute Retinal Arterial Occlusion: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Correlation of visual acuity changes and optical coherence tomography imaging in patients with central retinal artery occlusion post-arterial thrombolysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Nursing management of a patient with central retinal artery occlusion after percutaneous coronary intervention: a case report.AME case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Local intra-arterial fibrinolysis (LIF) is a promising therapeutic option for CRAO. However, the narrow time window of 6 h has greatly limited the application of LIF. In this study, we explored the efficacy of LIF beyond the conventional time windows and compared the result with conservative therapy. This prospective study included 179 CRAO patients with baseline visual acuity (VA) ≤ 20/400 treated at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University. The mean time from vision loss to presentation was 5.5 days. 58 patients received conventional standard therapy (CST) alone.121 patients underwent LIF. Main outcome was VA improvement ≥ 0.3 logMAR. Secondary outcome was a favorable VA outcome of 20/200 or better. Logistic regressions were performed to identify predictors of visual improvement. 43% patients in the LIF group experienced VA improvement versus 19% with CST (P = 0.002). LIF was associated with 4.0-fold higher likelihood of visual improvement compared to CST (P = 0.001). Poor baseline VA (light perception or no light perception) and shortened prothrombin time (PT) were associated with greater chance of visual improvement with LIF. However, LIF showed no significant advantage over CST for favorable VA outcomes. No major complications occurred. LIF beyond the therapeutic time window improved vision in functionally blind CRAO patients and showed better efficacy when compared with CST. PT may be a potential predictor of visual outcome after LIF. Our findings could complement existing time-based treatment guidelines and potentially allow for personalized decisions on the use of LIF beyond time windows.
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.