作者
Thomas P. Zonneveld,Sarah E. Vermeer,Erik W. van Zwet,Adrien E.D. Groot,Ale Algra,Leo A.M. Aerden,Kees C.L. Alblas,Frank de Beer,Paul J.A.M. Brouwers,Koen de Gans,H. Maarten A. van Gemert,Bart C A M van Ginneken,Gerke S Grooters,Patricia H.A. Halkes,Tonny A M H G van der Heijden-Montfroy,Korné Jellema,Sonja W. de Jong,Harry Lövenich-Ciccarello,Willem D M van der Meulen,Edwin W Peters,Taco C van der Ree,Michel Remmers,Edo Richard,Jörgen M P Rovers,Ritu Saxena,Sander M. Van Schaik,Wouter J. Schonewille,Tobien H.C.M.L. Schreuder,E.L.L.M. De Schryver,Wouter J. Schuiling,Fianne Spaander,Julia H. van Tuijl,Marieke C. Visser,Sanne M. Zinkstok,Elles Zock,Diederik W.J. Dippel,L. Jaap Kappelle,Robert J. van Oostenbrugge,Yvo B.W.E.M. Roos,Frédérique H Vermeij,Marieke J.H. Wermer,H. Bart van der Worp,Paul J. Nederkoorn,Nyika D. Kruyt
摘要
Intravenous thrombolysis is contraindicated in patients with ischaemic stroke with blood pressure higher than 185/110 mm Hg. Prevailing guidelines recommend to actively lower blood pressure with intravenous antihypertensive agents to allow for thrombolysis; however, there is no robust evidence for this strategy. Because rapid declines in blood pressure can also adversely affect clinical outcomes, several Dutch stroke centres use a conservative strategy that does not involve the reduction of blood pressure. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of both strategies.