ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Comparative effectiveness of intra-arterial thrombolysis vs. mechanical thrombectomy: a literature review.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Time is the single most critical factor in the management of patients presenting with AIS, where re-opening of occluded blood vessels is paramount. Intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) are two such therapies employed to reestablish cerebrovascular blood flow in patients with AIS. This review compares both IAT and MT according to their efficacy, safety profiles, recanalization rates, clinical outcomes, and adverse procedural events. Methods: Study abstraction from electronic search databases comprising PubMed/MEDLINE, ResearchGate, and the National Library of Medicine was used. Screening and selection of relevant articles were comprehensively conducted for this review. Direct comparisons between IAT and MT in terms of variables including recanalization rates, clinical outcomes, and adverse procedural events were warranted for study inclusion. Research determined to exhibit insufficient data or without comparable groups were subsequently excluded. Results: MT was prompter when executing procedures than IAT, achieving greater rates of recanalization. Both interventions displayed similar results regarding rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and mortality. Despite current available data indicating MT to demonstrate more efficiency as a procedure, further research is needed to examine IAT in light of specific patient demographics, clinical presentation, and circumstances. Conclusion: This review elucidated that MT often takes less time peri-procedurally, achieving greater success in revascularization compared with that of IAT. Regarding mortality and sICH rates, IAT and MT comparison showed equivocal results. Thus, while making therapeutic decisions, it is important to consider the unique clinical features of each patient as well as the timing of interventions in order to maximize treatment outcomes.
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.