SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Control After Endovascular Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis 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 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Blood pressure management for stroke patients beyond the JSH 2025 guidelines.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal strategy for blood pressure management following mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion remains a subject of ongoing research.
methodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to June 20, 2025. Randomized controlled trials comparing intensive versus standard blood pressure control following mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke were included. The primary outcomes were excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-1 at 90 days) and good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 at 90 days). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsA total of 6 randomized controlled trials were included. The pooled estimates indicated that intensive blood pressure control was associated with lower rates of good functional outcome (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.91]), an increased likelihood of all-cause mortality (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.05-1.40]), and a higher incidence of hypotensive episodes (OR, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.56-3.96]). No significant differences were found in excellent functional outcome (OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.67-1.23]) or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.89-1.61]). The overall strength of evidence was high for functional outcomes and hypotensive episodes, whereas it was moderate for all-cause mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrates that intensive blood pressure control following mechanical thrombectomy does not improve functional outcomes and may be associated with harm, including reduced rates of good functional outcome, increased all-cause mortality, and a higher incidence of hypotensive episodes.
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.