1. Meta‐Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Intensive Blood Pressure Control After Thrombectomy
- Author
-
Qiang Ji Bao, Yi Ming Li, Xinting Wu, Yun Ting Li, Xiao Long Huang, Hui Zhou, Xiao Qiang Zhang, and Xue Jun Wang
- Subjects
blood pressure ,endovascular thrombectomy ,ischemic stroke ,meta‐analysis ,outcomes ,Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry ,RC321-571 - Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose After successful endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke, there remains considerable controversy surrounding the efficacy of intensified blood pressure control therapy. Presently, numerous randomized controlled trials have yielded diverse findings. Thus, our objective is to consolidate all current randomized controlled trial data to evaluate whether intensified systolic blood pressure targets, in comparison to standard targets, offer superior safety and efficacy. Methods By searching the EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases, we identified randomized controlled trials comparing standard blood pressure control to intensified blood pressure control in patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Efficacy outcomes included favorable clinical outcomes (defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–2 at 90 days), excellence clinical outcomes (defined as an mRS score of 0–1 at 90 days), and 90‐day mortality. Safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). The relationship between standard and intensified blood pressure control post‐EVT and the prognosis of patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy was expressed using risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results The analysis encompassed four studies involving a total of 753 patients. After sensitivity analysis and exclusion of literature with significant heterogeneity, it was revealed that compared to intensified blood pressure control, standard blood pressure control was associated with excellent clinical outcomes RR of 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73–0.90; p
- Published
- 2025
- Full Text
- View/download PDF