You wouldn't have to worry about hemorrhages if you vastly reduced the bolus by delivering it via magnetic nanoparticles. Or are you FUCKING INCOMPETENT in not knowing about that?
We should have been using magnetic nanoparticles to deliver tPA for years. Then you wouldn't have to waste money on research like this.
Maybe this solution from March, 2015
Magnetic nanoparticles could stop blood clot-caused strokes
Or this from May, 2012
Future of med devices: Nanorobots in your blood stream
Send me hate mail on this: oc1dean@gmail.com. I'll print your complete statement with your name and my response in my blog. Or are you afraid to engage with my stroke-addled mind? No excuses are allowed! You're medically trained; it should be simple to precisely refute all my points with NO EXCUSES!! And what is your definition of competence in stroke? Swearing at me is allowed, I'll return the favor. Don't even attempt to use that brain research is hard
Thelatest here:
Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke: a study on intravenous thrombolysis in patients over 80 years of age with acute ischaemic stroke.
Marius Matusevicius, Ana Paiva Nunes, Manju Krishnan, Jose Egido
BMJ Open. 2025 Jan 11; 15(1): e087454
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the safety and efficacy outcomes of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in patients aged >80 years with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) after IVT was approved in this patient population in several European and non-European countries during 2018-2019.DESIGN
This is an observational registry study using prospectively collected data from the Safe Implementation of Treatment in Stroke (SITS) registry. Comparisons will be performed between patients treated post-approval (July 2018 to December 2021) period with those treated pre-approval (June 2015 to June 2018) period using propensity score matching (PSM).SETTING
This is a multicentre international study in hospitals treating AIS with IVT.PARTICIPANTS
Patients aged >80 years who otherwise followed the IVT Summary of Product Characteristics of European countries as part of the mutual recognition procedure.PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES
The main outcomes were symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage per SITS monitoring study definition, death and functional independency as defined by a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 90 days.RESULTS
After PSM, 614 patients remained in each group (mean age 87 years, 39% males). All baseline data were well balanced after PSM. There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between pre- and post-approval patients for SICH (2.5% vs 2.3%, risk ratio (RR) 1.064, 95% CI 0.345-1.784), death (25.3% vs 28.4%, RR 0.889, 0.699-1.08) and functional independency at 90 days (40.3% vs 37%, RR 1.089, 0.942-1.237).CONCLUSIONS
In this observational study of IVT treatment in patients >80 years of age with AIS before and after formal approval for this treatment, we did not find any difference in outcomes between the pre- and post-approval periods.Source: BMJ open
No comments:
Post a Comment