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,Elizabeth 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,Els 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,Martin M. Brown,Gian Marco De Marchis,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.