ArticleFluids and barriers of the CNS2024
C1-inhibitor to prevent intracerebral hemorrhage-related secondary brain injury.
Article in Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 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.
- Therapeutic Potential of C1-Inhibitor in Vascular Diseases and Beyond.Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreclinical studies indicate that the systemic application of C1-inhibitor, clinically used to treat hereditary angioedema, reduces secondary brain injury after ischemic stroke. This study assessed the effect of C1-inhibitor on secondary brain injury after hemorrhagic stroke.
methodsWe used an established striatal whole-blood injection mouse model to mimic intracerebral hemorrhage-related secondary brain injury. Based on the spatiotemporal dynamics in our model, we calculated the necessary sample size (n = 24) and determined the most sensitive time point to detect potential group differences (48 h) prior to the experiments. The experimental setup, tissue processing and image analysis adhered to our published protocol. We randomized mice into three groups: C1-inhibitor treatment, placebo, and sham. Histology was standardized by taking eight anatomically predefined slices across the entire lesion. Lesion size, vascular leakage, and inflammatory responses were assessed using automated thresholding and dextran/ICAM1/CD45 intensity mapping. Investigators were blinded to group allocation during the experiment, tissue processing, and image analysis.
resultsWhole blood injection resulted in significantly larger lesion size and more pronounced vascular leakage and cellular inflammation compared to the sham group. However, there was no difference in lesion size or inflammatory markers between the C1-inhibitor and placebo groups. In addition, there was no difference in the inflammatory response of the choroid plexus, which has been identified as a central organ orchestrating inflammation after intracerebral hemorrhage.
conclusionThe protective effect of C1-inhibitor might be isolated to pathophysiological processes with a predominant thromboinflammatory component, as in ischemia-reperfusion, but less so in permanent ischemia or intracerebral hemorrhage.
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.