ArticleClinical interventions in aging2024
Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes Between Reperfusion and Non-Reperfusion Therapy in Elderly Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the benefit (90-day mRS score) and rate of major complications (early symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage-SICH) after reperfusion therapy (RT) (including intravenous thrombolysis -IVT and mechanical thrombectomy -MT) in patients over 80 years with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Patients and Methods: AIS patients aged over 80 admitted to Huizhou Central People's Hospital from September 2018 to 2023 were included in this study. Data on SICH, NIHSS, and mRS were analyzed. A good prognosis was defined as a mRS ≤ 2 or recovery to pre-stroke status at 90 days. Results: Of 209 patients, 80 received non-RT, 100 received IVT and 29 underwent MT. The non-RT group had the lowest baseline NIHSS while the MT group had the highest (non-RT 6.0 vs IVT 12.0 vs MT 18.0, P <0.001). Higher NIHSS was associated with increased SICH risk (OR 1.083, P=0.032), while RT was not (OR 5.194, P=0.129). The overall SICH rate in the RT group was higher but not significantly different after stratification by stroke severity. Poor prognosis was associated with higher admission NIHSS, stroke due to large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) combined with cardioembolism (CE), and stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP) (OR 0.902, P<0.001; OR 0.297, P=0.029; OR 0.103, P<0.001, respectively). The RT group showed a greater reduction in NIHSS (delta NIHSS) than the non-RT group (non-RT 2.0 vs IVT 4.0 vs MT 6.0, P<0.005). For severe AIS, the IVT group had a better prognosis at 90 days (non-RT 0% vs IVT 38.2%, P=0.039). No 90-day mortality difference was found between groups after stratification. Conclusion: Stroke severity, rather than RT, is an independent risk factor for SICH in AIS patients over 80. RT in severe stroke patients improves NIHSS at 90 days, suggesting RT is safe and effective in this demographic. Further studies with larger samples are required to confirm these findings.
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.