ReviewFrontiers in neurology2026
Intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke after recent direct oral anticoagulant intake: toward evidence-informed care.
Review in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients with recent direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) intake remains one of the most debated issues in contemporary stroke medicine. Current international guidelines generally discourage IVT within 48 h of DOAC ingestion, largely because of concerns regarding symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and the absence of randomized evidence. However, an increasing body of evidence from international registries and multicenter cohorts has not identified a clear increase in sICH among carefully selected patients with recent DOAC exposure who received IVT. Some observational studies have also reported an association with more favorable functional outcomes than those observed in otherwise eligible patients in whom reperfusion therapy was withheld, although these comparisons are susceptible to selection bias and confounding by indication. In this Perspective, we discuss recent advances that have challenged the traditional practice of broadly excluding patients with recent DOAC exposure from IVT. We review observational evidence concerning IVT in selected patients, examine biological hypotheses that could be relevant to the observed clinical findings, and discuss evolving roles of reversal agents and laboratory assessment of anticoagulant activity. We further highlight current implementation barriers and future research priorities, including prospective studies, improved point-of-care anticoagulant testing, and refinement of patient-selection strategies. We argue that contemporary evidence supports reconsideration of rigid time-based exclusion criteria in favor of more individualized, evidence-informed decision-making. Although important uncertainties remain, recent DOAC exposure may not necessarily preclude IVT in appropriately selected patients, particularly when anticoagulant activity can be reliably assessed.
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.