ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of Esmolol and Nicardipine treatment in hypertensive acute ıschemic stroke patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Calcium Channel Blockers in Critical Care Medicine: Current Clinical Applications and Future Investigational Perspectives.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The most important risk factor in ischaemic stroke patients is hypertension (HT). Blood pressure regulation has an important role in hypertensive acute ischaemic stroke patients (AIS). In this study, we planned to compare the efficacy of nicardipine and esmolol infusion on blood pressure control and clinical outcome in hypertensive AIS patients. The study is a retrospective, cross-sectional study. It includes hypertensive AIS patients admitted to the emergency department. Target blood pressure, time to reach target blood pressure, discharge modified Rankin Scale (mRS), intracranial haemorrhage according to The European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study (ECASS II) and 30-day mortality of patients who were started Nicardipine or Esmolol within the indication were determined and mortality and morbidity of the two groups were compared. The study included 82 acute ischaemic stroke patients who were hypertensive at presentation. The mean age of the patients was 72 years (39-93). No difference was observed between the Nicardipine (n = 40) and Esmolol (n = 42) groups in terms of sociodemographic data, vital functions and clinical status (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale - NIHSS) at admission. The target blood pressure levels were reached faster and more effectively in the Nicardipine group than in the Esmolol group (p < 0.001). No difference was observed between the two groups in terms of mRS, ECASS II scores and 30-day mortality. Nicardipine is more effective than Esmolol in blood pressure control in AIS patients who are candidates for invasive procedures such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy. The fact that there is no difference in mortality and morbidity between the two drugs suggests that Esmolol can also be used in selected patients.
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.