ReviewCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2024
Blood pressure management after endovascular thrombectomy: Insights of recent randomized controlled trials.
Review in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- DSA-NRP: No-Reflow Prediction From Angiographic Perfusion Dynamics in Stroke EVT.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2026Article
- Machine learning-enabled prediction of hemorrhagic transformation post-thrombectomy using quantitative DSA.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Blood pressure management after endovascular thrombectomy: Insights of recent randomized controlled trials.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ideal blood pressure (BP) target in patients who undergo endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) with successful reperfusion is uncertain. Observational studies show that elevated BP during this period is associated with a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and worse clinical outcomes. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored whether intensive BP lowering improves clinical outcomes in these patients.
aimsThis review aims to summarize the recent RCTs that compare intensive and conventional BP management strategies following EVT and discuss the innovative directions to improve.
resultThe recently published RCTs failed to demonstrate the benefit of intensive BP control on the functional outcome and decreasing the risk of ICH. The complex mechanism in cerebral blood flow regulation and the inappropriate BP range chosen in RCTs may be the reasons behind the inconsistent results between observational studies and RCTs. Individualized BP management, reducing BP variability, and multi-stage BP management should be paid more attention in future exploration.
conclusionIntensive BP target did not improve clinical outcomes after successful EVT as compared with a conventional BP target. Further research is required to identify the optimal BP management strategy after reperfusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.