Blood Pressure Management Following Endovascular Stroke Treatment: A Feasibility Trial and Meta‐Analysis of Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although postprocedure blood pressure (BP) correlates with outcome in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), the optimal target is unknown. Methods We performed a pilot randomized‐controlled clinical trial enrolling participants with persistently elevated BP after successful EVT. Participants were randomized within 1 hour from the end of EVT to either intensive (systolic BP target <140 mmHg) or standard BP target (systolic BP <180 mmHg) for 48 hours. The main end point was feasibility, which was assessed with the enrollment rate and adherence to allocated BP target. Exploratory end points included neurologic deterioration, functional improvement, intracranial hemorrhage, and flow dynamics detected by transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. We included the outcomes of our trial in an aggregate data meta‐analysis of randomized‐controlled clinical trials evaluating the utility of BP control after successful EVT. The primary outcome of the meta‐analysis was 3‐month good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of ≤2. Results Between October 23, 2020, and February 4, 2023, 221 patients were screened and 30 were randomized (14%; average recruitment of 1.2 participants/month). Participants in the intensive BP arm had a mean±SD systolic BP of 131±18 mm Hg over 48 hours (75% of the readings were <140 mm Hg), whereas participants in the standard BP arm had a mean±SD 48‐hour systolic BP of 139±18 mm Hg (48% of the readings were between 140 and 180 mm Hg). No differences between the 2 groups were documented in any of the predefined exploratory end points. In a meta‐analysis of 5 randomized‐controlled clinical trials involving 1558 participants, intensive BP control was associated with lower probability for 3‐month good functional outcome (odds ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53–0.82]; I 2 = 8%) when compared with standard BP control. Conclusions The natural course of BP normalization following successful recanalization poses challenges to the conduct and success of randomized‐controlled clinical trials evaluating different BP thresholds after EVT. Meta‐analysis of existing trials suggests harm associated with active BP lowering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".