Neuroanesthesia & neurocritical care
Intensive vs Conventional Blood Pressure Control After Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
An erratum to this article was published (JAMA Netw Open, 4 Nov 2024 ↗)
Pooled result · Functional independenceResult — go to the resultRelative risk 0.81 95% CI 0.67–0.98Authors' conclusion
These findings suggest that intensive post-EVT BP reduction does not yield benefits and may carry risks.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion treated with endovascular thrombectomy
- Participants
- 1,571 patients · 4 RCTs
- Comparison
- Intensive vs conventional systolic blood pressure (BP) targets after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT)
- Outcome
- Functional independence
Methodological detailsrandom-effects meta-analysis, PRISMA
- Random-effects meta-analysis
- PRISMA
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Relative risk
0.81
95% CI 0.67–0.98
Intensive vs Conventional
RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.67–0.98)
Further pooled results
- No significant difference in 90-day mortality, intensive vs conventional SBP target (RR, 95% CI)
- RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.92-1.52]
- Random-effects meta-analysis
- Heterogeneity absent (I2 = 0 and τ2 = 0)
Safety
Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage
- No significant difference in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, intensive vs conventional SBP target (RR, 95% CI)
- RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.75-1.67]
- Heterogeneity absent (I2 = 0 and τ2 = 0)
Hypotensive events
- No significant difference in hypotensive events, intensive vs conventional SBP target (RR, 95% CI)
- RR, 1.80 [95% CI, 0.37-8.76]
- Heterogeneity absent (I2 = 0 and τ2 = 0)
Original publication
Intensive vs Conventional Blood Pressure Control After Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open. Published 5 February 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →