Observational studyStroke and vascular neurology2026
Intravenous thrombolysis versus early antiplatelet therapy in acute ischaemic stroke with small artery occlusion.
Observational study in Stroke and vascular neurology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) versus early antiplatelet therapy (APT) in small artery occlusion (SAO) stroke remains debated.
methodsIschaemic stroke (IS) patients with SAO who received IVT or early APT without IVT≤4.5 hours from stroke onset were screened from a prospective multicentre IS registry study from 1 January to 1 June 2021. The primary outcome was unfavourable functional outcome (FO) at 3 months. The secondary outcome was early neurological deterioration (END). The safety outcome was symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (sICH).
resultsThere were 1125 SAO patients with 394 receiving IVT. 411 patients (36.5%) exhibited unfavourable FO, and sICH occurred in 3 cases (0.27%), all in IVT group, at the follow-up. END was observed in 213 patients (18.9%). After propensity score matching and multivariable adjustment, IVT significantly reduced the likelihood of unfavourable FO at 3 months (aOR 0.447, 95% CI 0.305 to 0.656), but no significant difference was found in END (aOR 0.867, 95% CI 0.569 to 1.321). Clustering analysis identified two distinct phenotypes: phenotype 0 (characterised by traditional cardiovascular risk factors) and phenotype 1 (marked by prominent inflammatory markers). A significant treatment-by-phenotype interaction was observed (p=0.002), with a comparable magnitude of benefit in phenotype 0 (aOR 0.405, 95% CI 0.244 to 0.673) compared with phenotype 1 (aOR 0.414, 95% CI 0.218 to 0.783).
conclusionIVT significantly reduced the likelihood of unfavourable FO at 3 months in SAO patients but did not significantly reduce END. Patients with traditional risk factors may benefit more from IVT than those with elevated inflammatory markers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2100045258.
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.