English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of the study was to explore the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis and bridging artery thrombectomy for hyperacute ischemic stroke with unknown onset time.    Material and methods  One hundred and twenty-eight patients with hyperacute cerebral infarction and without a clear time of onset were randomly divided into intravenous thrombolysis (n = 66) and bridging artery thrombectomy groups (n = 62).    Results  In the intravenous thrombolysis group, 37 patients’ vessels had recanalization, 32 patients’ 24-hour National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score improved, and 42 patients’ 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score was good. In the bridging artery thrombectomy group, 62 patients’ vessels had recanalization, 28 patients’ 24-hour NIHSS score improved, and 38 patients’ 90-day mRS score was good.    Conclusions  The benefits and adverse events between intravenous thrombolysis and bridging artery thrombectomy for ischemic stroke with unknown time of onset are similar.

Clinical comparison of intravenous thrombolysis and bridging artery thrombectomy in hyperacute ischemic stroke with unknown time of onset