Trial reportBMJ open2025
Long-term efficacy of remote ischaemic postconditioning after rt-PA intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischaemic stroke.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
The Recovery of Nerve Function Deficient of Combined Intravenous Thrombolysis and Remote Ischemic Post-conditioning in Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Long-term Efficacy of Remote Ischemic Postconditioning After Rt-PA Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: The Randomized RESPONTH Trial
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the long-term efficacy of remote ischaemic postconditioning (RIPC) on functional outcomes in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) who received intravenous thrombolysis (IVT).
designThis was a post-trial follow-up study of a rater-blinded randomised controlled trial.
settingSingle-centre study conducted in a tertiary hospital in China, with follow-up interviews performed via telephone approximately 4.8 years after randomisation (November 2022).
participantsThe original trial (NCT03218293) included 68 patients allocated either to the control group (n=34) or the RIPC group (n=32) between August 2017 and June 2018. For this follow-up, 62 patients (93.9%) were successfully contacted and included in the analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a favourable functional outcome, defined as a modified Ranking Score (mRS) 0 or 1 at long-term follow-up. Secondary outcomes included functional independence (mRS 0-2), recurrent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and all-cause mortality. Binary outcomes were analysed using generalised linear models with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjustment. Time-to-event analyses employed IPTW-weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models, with statistical significance set at p<0.05.
resultsAt a median follow-up of 4.8 years (IQR 4.6-5.1), the proportion of favourable functional outcome was higher in the RIPC group when compared with the control group (unadjusted risk ratio, 3.87; 95% CI 1.34 to 11.17; p=0.012 and IPTW-adjusted risk ratio, 5.92; 95% CI 1.45 to 24.24; p=0.017). The RIPC group also showed a trend towards improved stroke/TIA recurrence-free survival compared with the control group (IPTW-adjusted HR, 0.52; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.00; p=0.050).
conclusionIVT combined with repeated in-hospital RIPC may lead to improved long-term functional recovery and reduced stroke/TIA recurrence in patients with AIS. Larger multicentre trials are warranted to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05614401.
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.