Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke: a study on intravenous thrombolysis in patients over 80 years of age with acute ischaemic stroke.

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