ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences2026
Safety and effects of continuous argatroban administration in acute cerebral infarction: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArgatroban is an antithrombotic agent commonly used in the acute phase of cerebral infarction. Although the standard administration method is continuous infusion within the first 2 days only, many patients receive continuous intravenous infusion beyond day 3 owing to concerns of symptoms worsening during intermittent dosing, which may be insufficient given the short half-life of argatroban. However, evidence supporting the continuous intravenous infusion beyond day 3 remains limited. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy between continuous and intermittent argatroban administration.
methodsPatients who received argatroban for acute cerebral infarction at Kyoto University Hospital between January 2019 and August 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. The patients were categorized based on actual treatment regimens into either the intermittent or continuous infusion group. Clinical characteristics, safety outcomes, and neurological status were then compared between the groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of bleeding events, and the secondary outcome was neurological status, as assessed using the manual muscle test.
resultsNo clear difference in safety was observed between the two groups. The proportion of patients with a manual muscle test score of 10 significantly increased over time in the intermittent infusion group, whereas no such trend was observed in the continuous infusion group. Subgroup analysis by stroke type showed a similar increasing trend in all groups except the continuous infusion group with branch atheromatous disease, which is known to be associated with a high risk of early neurological deterioration.
conclusionContinuous argatroban administration was not associated with an increased risk of bleeding events within the limitations of the current study, despite more intensive concomitant antithrombotic therapy. Although no clear neurological improvement was observed, continuous administration may represent a feasible treatment option in carefully selected patients; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to baseline imbalances and potential selection bias, warranting further prospective investigation.
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.