Trial reportEuropean stroke journal2026
Clevidipine infusion for blood pressure management after successful revascularisation in acute ischaemic stroke: the CLEVER study.
Trial report in European stroke journal, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLimited studies have provided guidance on the optimal systolic blood pressure (SBP) after mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke patients. In the Clevidipine Infusion for Blood Pressure Management After Successful Revascularization in Acute Ischemic Stroke (CLEVER) trial, our aim was to study the safety and efficacy of intensive SBP control with a Clevidipine infusion as the first-line agent.
methodsThe CLEVER trial was an investigator-initiated, single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a SBP goal after successful MT (mTICI 2c or greater) of either 90-120mmHg (Intensive BP Management) or 90-160mmHg (Standard BP Management). The primary outcomes were time to target blood pressure and incidence of any hemorrhagic conversion at 24 hours.
resultsBetween October 2021 and December 2023, 80 eligible patients were enrolled, 40 each into the intensive BP and the standard BP management cohorts. Overall, 72% of all BP measurements in the intensive BP management group were within the target range, compared to 93% in the standard BP management group (p<0.001). The median time from the initiation of Clevidipine infusion until reaching the target SBP was significantly shorter in the standard BP management group, 10 minutes [IQR 5.0-45.0] versus 20 IQR 12.5-42.5] (95%CI:5.0-20.0, p=0.002). The incidence of hemorrhagic transformation per core lab was not significantly different in the intensive BP management group (32.5%) and the standard BP management group (35.0%); adjusted OR (0.93 [95%CI, 0.30-2.85]; p=0.89).
conclusionIn the randomised CLEVER trial, intensive BP control using clevidipine after MT failed to reduce the rate of haemorrhagic conversion or sICH and resulted in a numerically lower rate of good clinical outcome compared to standard BP control. Clevidipine was well tolerated in both cohorts and demonstrated a similar safety profile. Larger studies are needed to understand the efficacy and safety of clevidipine for BP control and the optimal BP threshold after MT.
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.