ArticleCNS drugs2026
Prioritizing Antihypertensive Agents in Secondary Prevention of Ischemic Stroke: A Retrospective Population-Based Study.
Article in CNS drugs, 2026. 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
backgroundAlthough recurrent ischemic stroke (IS) is associated with higher rates of mortality and comorbidities as well as an increased economic burden than the first attack, the choice of first-line antihypertensive agent for secondary prevention remains controversial. This study examined the efficacy of various antihypertensive agents for the secondary prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke in a real-world context.
methodsUsing the National Health Insurance Research Database, patients with first acute IS from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2020 were enrolled. Using propensity score-based probability of treatment weighting, all participants were divided into other antihypertensive drugs (OHTND), angiotensin-converting-enzyme-inhibitors/angiotensin II-receptor-blockers (ACEI/ARB), and calcium-channel-blockers (CCB) cohorts. Primary outcome was difference in risk of recurrent IS, and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke-related death, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals.
resultsCompared with the OHTND cohort, individuals in the ACEI/ARB and CCB cohorts had a 14% (p < 0.001) and 15% (p < 0.001) lower risk of recurrent IS, respectively. Individuals in the CCB cohort had a 37% (p = 0.006) higher risk of acute myocardial infarction compared with the OHTND cohort. Compared with ACEI users, ARB users experienced a 22% lower risk of recurrent IS, while ARB users had a 46% lower risk of stroke-related death.
conclusionsThe use of ACEI/ARB following acute IS was associated with a lower risk of recurrent IS. Our results not only corresponded to pre-existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but also addressed the knowledge gap regarding the choice of first-line antihypertensive agents following acute IS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40986251What 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.