Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40760789›Full record

SynthesisBrain and behavior2025

Current Advancement and Patient Outcomes in Reperfusion Brain Injuries After Stroke: A Comparative Analysis of Thrombolysis and Thrombectomy.

Olobatoke Tunde Ayomide, Vishal Chavda, Bipin Chaurasia, Esther Bassey, Kanishk Dang, Henry Demian Oyoyo, Jackson T S Cheung, Aruni Velalakan, Odemona Glory Toluwanibukun, Nazmin Ahmed

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Olobatoke Tunde AyomideCollege of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0266-3735
Vishal ChavdaDepartment of Medicine, Multispeciality, Trauma and ICCU Center, Sardar Hospital, Ahmedabad, India.
Bipin ChaurasiaDepartment of Neurosurgery, College of Medical Sciences, Bharatpur, Nepal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8392-2072
Esther BasseyUniversity of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9221-2219
Kanishk DangMoldova State Univeristy, Chișinău, Moldova.
Henry Demian OyoyoCollege of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Jackson T S CheungUCL Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK.
Aruni VelalakanConsultant Neurosurgeon and Chairman of VNeuro Clinic, Sigmaringen, Germany.
Odemona Glory ToluwanibukunDepartment of Paediatrics, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria.
Nazmin AhmedDepartment of Neurosurgery, Ibrahim Cardiac Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke remains a leading cause of death and disability worldwide, with ischemic stroke accounting for the majority of cases. Advances in reperfusion therapies, including intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and mechanical thrombectomy (MT), have significantly improved outcomes for acute ischemic stroke patients. However, reperfusion brain injury (RBI), a paradoxical consequence of recanalization, poses a major challenge, driven by oxidative stress, inflammation, and blood-brain barrier disruption. This review critically examines emerging therapeutic strategies to mitigate RBI, focusing on pharmacological agents such as edaravone, NXY-059, and tenecteplase, as well as procedural innovations in thrombectomy.

methodsThis review employed a systematic search of databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus using certain keywords. A comparative analysis of thrombolysis and thrombectomy was done, and emerging techniques and drugs mitigating reperfusion brain injury (RBI) were discussed.

resultsThrombolysis and thrombectomy highlight key differences in efficacy, safety, and patient selection criteria. While thrombectomy demonstrates superior outcomes in large vessel occlusions (LVOs), thrombolysis remains a cornerstone for early intervention where thrombectomy is inaccessible. Essential drugs like NXY-059, edaravone, uric acid, N-acetylcysteine, and others are changing the care of RBI after stroke. Newer thrombectomy techniques and technologies are also promising. However, the evident efficacy of these methods is still inconsistent in various patients. While thrombectomy and thrombolysis have the potential to cause post-stroke cognitive decline, thrombectomy leads to better outcomes, but patient-specific factors such as age, previous medical history, infarct volume, and others must be considered. Neurorehabilitation is essential for patient recovery from post-stroke cognitive decline. Strategies such as the use of gas-mediated therapies, pharmacological agents, stem cell therapies, antioxidant nanomedicines, and modulation of specific proteins like sirtuins are emerging treatment techniques and are promising to change the narration of RBI management and impact patient outcomes.

conclusionThe review underscores the need for precision medicine approaches, improved imaging for patient selection, and comprehensive longitudinal studies to optimize reperfusion strategies. Targeted interventions addressing oxidative damage and inflammation hold promise for reducing RBI and improving long-term patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Ischemic StrokeReperfusion InjuryStrokeThrombectomyThrombolytic TherapyFibrinolytic AgentsHumansTreatment OutcomeFibrinolytic Agentsreperfusion brain injury (RBI)strokethrombectomythrombolysis

Identifiers

PMID40760789
PMCPMC12321978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.