ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients on Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Analysis of the Get With The Guidelines Stroke Registry.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to the letter to the editor regarding "safety of tenecteplase versus alteplase for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke patients with direct oral anticoagulation".Neurological research and practice · 2026Article
- Intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke after recent direct oral anticoagulant intake: toward evidence-informed care.Frontiers in neurology · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a proven effective treatment. Whether thrombolysis in patients with AIS with recent direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use is safe and efficacious is not well established. We aimed to compare outcomes of patients with AIS and recent DOAC use who received thrombolysis to those otherwise eligible but excluded due to recent DOAC use.
methodsThis study included patients for the GWTG (Get With The Guidelines) registry with a diagnosis of AIS within 4.5 hours from last known normal, on a DOAC, and either (1) received intravenous thrombolysis, or (2) were excluded from thrombolysis with coagulopathy being the only reason for exclusion. We used univariate and adjusted binary logistic regression models with clustering by site to compare the 2 groups' functional status (ambulation on discharge and discharge disposition) and reported rates of safety outcomes in the thrombolysis group.
resultsThe study sample included 48 907 patients with AIS using a DOAC; 4702 received thrombolysis and 44 205 did not. In adjusted logistic regression models, patients with recent DOAC use receiving thrombolysis had increased odds of independent ambulation at discharge (odds ratio [OR], 1.35[ 95% CI, 1.21-1.50]) and home discharge (OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.22-1.46]). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage with intravenous thrombolysis in patients with recent DOAC use was 3.5% (95% CI, 3.0%-4.1%).
conclusionsIn this study, intravenous thrombolysis was associated with improved functional outcomes in patients with recent DOAC use and appeared safe. Given the study limitations, findings require validation by prospective trials.
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.