↓ Skip to main content

Recanalization and Reperfusion Therapies of Acute Ischemic Stroke: What have We Learned, What are the Major Research Questions, and Where are We Headed?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Recanalization and Reperfusion Therapies of Acute Ischemic Stroke: What have We Learned, What are the Major Research Questions, and Where are We Headed?
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2014.00226
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meritxell Gomis, Antoni Dávalos

Abstract

Two placebo-controlled trials have shown that early administration of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) after ischemic stroke improves outcomes up to 4.5 h after symptoms onset; however, six other trials contradict these results. We also know from analysis of the pooled data that benefits from treatment decrease as time from stroke onset to start of treatment increases. In addition to time, another important factor is patient selection through multimodal imaging, combining data from artery status, and salvageable tissue measures. Nonetheless, at the present time randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot demonstrate any beneficial outcomes for neuroimaging mismatch selection after 4.5 h from symptoms onset. By focusing on cases of large arterial occlusion, we know that recanalization is crucial, so endovascular treatment is an approach of interest. The use of intra-arterial thrombolysis was tested in two small RCTs that demonstrated clear benefits in terms of higher recanalization and also in clinical outcomes. But a new paradigm of stroke treatment may have begun with mechanical thrombectomy. In this field, Merci devices have been overtaken by fully deployed closed-cell self-expanding stents (stent-retrievers or "stent-trievers"). However, despite the high rate of recanalization achieved with stent-retrievers compared with other recanalization treatments, the use of these devices cannot clearly demonstrate better outcomes. Thus, futile recanalization occurs when successful recanalization fails to improve functional outcome. Recently, three RCTs, namely synthesis, IMS-III, and MR-rescue, have not been demonstrated any clear benefit for endovascular treatment. Most likely, these trials were not adequately designed to prove the superiority of endovascular treatment because they did not use optimal target populations, vascular status was not evaluated in all patients, relatively high rates of patients did not have enough mismatch, time from baseline neuroimaging to recanalization were too long or the devices used are now obsolete relative to stent-retrievers. Several RCTs currently underway are trying to determine whether bridging therapy is more effective than intravenous treatment and if mechanical thrombectomy is more effective than best medical treatment in patients ineligible for intravenous thrombolysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 71 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 45%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,243,777
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,670
of 11,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,395
of 362,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#69
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.