探讨缺血性卒中血管内治疗后强化与标准血压管理的影响:一项比较系统回顾和荟萃分析。

Q3 Medicine
Qatar Medical Journal Pub Date : 2025-01-27 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5339/qmj.2025.21
Vikash Kumar Karmani, Yusra Mashkoor, Anshahrah Riaz, Zunera Khalid, Bijay Mukesh Jeswani, Inshal Jawed, Hina Khan, Mohitha Chowdary Mallipeddi, Manisha Chavan, Ajay Singh, Shahzad Zafar
{"title":"探讨缺血性卒中血管内治疗后强化与标准血压管理的影响:一项比较系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Vikash Kumar Karmani, Yusra Mashkoor, Anshahrah Riaz, Zunera Khalid, Bijay Mukesh Jeswani, Inshal Jawed, Hina Khan, Mohitha Chowdary Mallipeddi, Manisha Chavan, Ajay Singh, Shahzad Zafar","doi":"10.5339/qmj.2025.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the impact of intensive versus standard blood pressure control following post-endovascular therapy in ischemic stroke patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central databases from inception to December 2023. The outcomes evaluated included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-2), death or disability (mRS score 3-6), and health-related quality of life (three-level EuroQoL five-dimensional self-report questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L score). We used the standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes in all studies and used a random-effects model for data synthesis irrespective of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I<sup>2</sup> statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 2,000 articles and included four randomized controlled trials (3,635 patients). Intensive blood pressure control affected the health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L score) more than standard blood pressure (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.11, <i>p</i> = 0.0002). However, intensive blood pressure control after endovascular therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage within 36 hours (risk ratio (RR) = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.70-1.19, <i>p</i> = 0.51). Additionally, there was an insignificant improvement in the likelihood of regaining functional independence (mRS score 0-2) at three months (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73-1.04, <i>p</i> = 0.12). Moreover, there was an insignificant increase in the risk of death or disability (mRS score 3-6) at 3 months with intensive blood pressure control compared to standard blood pressure control (RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.93-1.51, <i>p</i> = 0.18).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In summary, our findings indicate that implementing intensive blood pressure control does not lead to an increased risk of adverse outcomes such as intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, compromised functional independence, disability, or mortality 3 months following endovascular therapy. Despite the observed reduction in health-related quality of life reflected in the EQ-5D-3L score, the overall safety profile of intensive blood pressure control compared to standard management suggests its viability as a potential strategy for improving patient outcomes in the context of endovascular therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":53667,"journal":{"name":"Qatar Medical Journal","volume":"2025 1","pages":"21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12107483/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the impact of intensive versus standard blood pressure management following post-endovascular therapy in ischemic stroke: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Vikash Kumar Karmani, Yusra Mashkoor, Anshahrah Riaz, Zunera Khalid, Bijay Mukesh Jeswani, Inshal Jawed, Hina Khan, Mohitha Chowdary Mallipeddi, Manisha Chavan, Ajay Singh, Shahzad Zafar\",\"doi\":\"10.5339/qmj.2025.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the impact of intensive versus standard blood pressure control following post-endovascular therapy in ischemic stroke patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central databases from inception to December 2023. The outcomes evaluated included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-2), death or disability (mRS score 3-6), and health-related quality of life (three-level EuroQoL five-dimensional self-report questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L score). We used the standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes in all studies and used a random-effects model for data synthesis irrespective of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I<sup>2</sup> statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 2,000 articles and included four randomized controlled trials (3,635 patients). Intensive blood pressure control affected the health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L score) more than standard blood pressure (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.11, <i>p</i> = 0.0002). However, intensive blood pressure control after endovascular therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage within 36 hours (risk ratio (RR) = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.70-1.19, <i>p</i> = 0.51). Additionally, there was an insignificant improvement in the likelihood of regaining functional independence (mRS score 0-2) at three months (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73-1.04, <i>p</i> = 0.12). Moreover, there was an insignificant increase in the risk of death or disability (mRS score 3-6) at 3 months with intensive blood pressure control compared to standard blood pressure control (RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.93-1.51, <i>p</i> = 0.18).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In summary, our findings indicate that implementing intensive blood pressure control does not lead to an increased risk of adverse outcomes such as intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, compromised functional independence, disability, or mortality 3 months following endovascular therapy. Despite the observed reduction in health-related quality of life reflected in the EQ-5D-3L score, the overall safety profile of intensive blood pressure control compared to standard management suggests its viability as a potential strategy for improving patient outcomes in the context of endovascular therapy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qatar Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"2025 1\",\"pages\":\"21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12107483/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qatar Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5339/qmj.2025.21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qatar Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5339/qmj.2025.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析探讨了缺血性卒中患者血管内治疗后强化血压控制与标准血压控制的影响。方法:根据PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for systematic Reviews and meta-analysis)指南,检索PubMed、谷歌Scholar和Cochrane Central数据库,从成立到2023年12月进行系统评价和荟萃分析。评估的结果包括症状性脑出血、功能独立性(改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分0-2)、死亡或残疾(mRS评分3-6)和健康相关生活质量(三级EuroQoL五维自我报告问卷(EQ-5D-3L评分)。我们对所有研究的连续结果使用95%置信区间(CI)的标准平均差(SMD),并在不考虑异质性的情况下使用随机效应模型进行数据综合。采用I2统计量评估异质性。结果:我们筛选了2000篇文章,包括4项随机对照试验(3,635例患者)。强化血压控制对健康相关生活质量(EQ-5D-3L评分)的影响大于标准血压(SMD = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.34 ~ -0.11, p = 0.0002)。然而,血管内治疗后强化血压控制并没有显著降低36小时内脑出血的风险(风险比(RR) = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.70-1.19, p = 0.51)。此外,三个月时恢复功能独立(mRS评分0-2)的可能性也有显著改善(RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73-1.04, p = 0.12)。此外,与标准血压控制相比,强化血压控制3个月时死亡或残疾的风险(mRS评分3-6)没有显著增加(RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.93-1.51, p = 0.18)。结论:总之,我们的研究结果表明,实施强化血压控制不会导致不良结局的风险增加,如血管内治疗后36小时内颅内出血、功能独立性受损、残疾或3个月死亡。尽管观察到EQ-5D-3L评分反映了健康相关生活质量的降低,但与标准管理相比,强化血压控制的总体安全性表明,在血管内治疗的背景下,强化血压控制作为改善患者预后的潜在策略是可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Exploring the impact of intensive versus standard blood pressure management following post-endovascular therapy in ischemic stroke: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

Exploring the impact of intensive versus standard blood pressure management following post-endovascular therapy in ischemic stroke: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the impact of intensive versus standard blood pressure control following post-endovascular therapy in ischemic stroke patients.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central databases from inception to December 2023. The outcomes evaluated included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-2), death or disability (mRS score 3-6), and health-related quality of life (three-level EuroQoL five-dimensional self-report questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L score). We used the standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes in all studies and used a random-effects model for data synthesis irrespective of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics.

Results: We screened 2,000 articles and included four randomized controlled trials (3,635 patients). Intensive blood pressure control affected the health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L score) more than standard blood pressure (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.11, p = 0.0002). However, intensive blood pressure control after endovascular therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage within 36 hours (risk ratio (RR) = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.70-1.19, p = 0.51). Additionally, there was an insignificant improvement in the likelihood of regaining functional independence (mRS score 0-2) at three months (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73-1.04, p = 0.12). Moreover, there was an insignificant increase in the risk of death or disability (mRS score 3-6) at 3 months with intensive blood pressure control compared to standard blood pressure control (RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.93-1.51, p = 0.18).

Conclusion: In summary, our findings indicate that implementing intensive blood pressure control does not lead to an increased risk of adverse outcomes such as intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, compromised functional independence, disability, or mortality 3 months following endovascular therapy. Despite the observed reduction in health-related quality of life reflected in the EQ-5D-3L score, the overall safety profile of intensive blood pressure control compared to standard management suggests its viability as a potential strategy for improving patient outcomes in the context of endovascular therapy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Qatar Medical Journal
Qatar Medical Journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信