ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2025
[Acute ischemic stroke treatment].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular therapy (EVT) are the cornerstones of acute ischemic stroke treatment. While IVT has been an integral part of acute therapy since the mid-1990s, EVT has evolved as one of the most effective treatments in medicine over the past decade. Traditionally, systemic thrombolysis has been performed with alteplase (rtPA). More recently, tenecteplase (TNK) has been shown to be non-inferior to rtPA. TNK has some pharmacological advantages over rtPA and may lead to earlier recanalization, particularly in large vessel occlusions. All recanalization therapies are highly time dependent. To ensure rapid treatment, standard operating procedures (SOPs) should be established and followed in clinical practice. The optimal time window for IVT is 4.5 h after symptom onset and can be extended up to 9 h using specialized imaging techniques. For EVT, studies suggest a time window up to 24 h after symptom onset. In some cases, EVT has been successfully performed beyond this time window. To select patients for EVT, advanced imaging identifying salvageable brain tissue might be necessary. Even in large ischemic stroke, EVT can still improve outcome. Compared to EVT, IVT requires fewer technical and human resources, so more stroke patients can potentially be treated. In contrast, EVT requires highly trained personnel with sophisticated equipment and can, therefore, only be performed in specialized centers. Both procedures should be combined within the 4.5 h time window for patients without contraindications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39789337What 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.