Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41608394›Full record

ReviewStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2025

Antiplatelet Therapy and Platelet Activity Testing for Neurointerventional Procedures.

Keiko A Fukuda, Charles Beaman, Viktor Szeder

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Keiko A FukudaDepartment of Radiology UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine Los Angeles CA.
Charles BeamanDepartment of Radiology UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine Los Angeles CA.
Viktor SzederDepartment of Radiology UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine Los Angeles CA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0703-8258

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The management of antiplatelet medications in neurointerventional procedures remains a subject of considerable variability and debate. This review article explores the diverse clinical practices and the impact of different antiplatelet regimens and platelet activity testing on patient outcomes in neurointerventional treatments. While much of the evidence around antiplatelet therapies largely stems from randomized trials in cardiac and peripheral vascular diseases, their application in neurointerventional settings requires nuanced consideration. Various assays exist to assess individual platelet function, yet the optimal assay, thresholds, and agents remain uncertain due to interpatient variability in medication responsiveness. Expert consensus groups have attempted to standardize antiplatelet management, which is summarized for elective and emergent neurointerventional procedures. Clopidogrel, a commonly used antiplatelet, faces challenges such as genetic variability in metabolism and drug-drug interactions, impacting its effectiveness. Other agents, such as ticagrelor and prasugrel, offer alternatives with different mechanisms of action and potential advantages. Additionally, short-acting intravenous P2Y

Indexed as

antiplatelet therapyclopidogrel resistanceneurointerventional proceduresP2Y12 reactivityplatelet function testingthromboembolic complicationsticagrelor

Identifiers

PMID41608394
PMCPMC11864584

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.