ArticleCardiology and cardiovascular medicine2026
Door-to-Needle Optimization in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Review of Rapid Emergency Department Interventions.
Article in Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acute ischemic stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, and the benefit of intravenous thrombolysis decays steeply with time while its hemorrhagic risk does not. That asymmetry makes the door-to-needle interval, measured from emergency department arrival to administration of the thrombolytic bolus, one of the few determinants of stroke outcome that can be improved without new technology or additional resources. This review synthesizes the evidence underlying door-to-needle optimization. It begins with the quantified biology of delay, in which roughly 1.9 million neurons are lost for every minute of untreated large-vessel ischemia, and with the pooled randomized data showing that the number needed to treat for one additional good outcome rises from approximately five within ninety minutes to approximately fifteen at the outer edge of the 4.5-hour window. It then examines how the interval should be measured, arguing that the mean and the minimum door-to-needle time must both be reported because they describe different properties of the same system. Prehospital determinants of delay, including field triage instruments, dispatcher and paramedic education, prenotification, and ambulance-based thrombolysis, are reviewed alongside the in-hospital Helsinki protocol, whose parallelization of imaging, clinical assessment, and drug preparation reduced median in-hospital delay to twenty minutes and was reproduced in Melbourne within four months. National registry data from the Target: Stroke initiative confirm that these gains scale across a hospital network with concurrent reductions in mortality and symptomatic hemorrhage. The review closes with the trade-off between speed and diagnostic certainty, the reassuring safety profile of thrombolysis in stroke mimics, and the way tenecteplase, imaging-based patient selection, and endovascular thrombectomy are reshaping what the metric measures.
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.