-
JACC. Heart Failure Feb 2022This study sought to estimate and compare the aggregate treatment benefit of pharmacological therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to estimate and compare the aggregate treatment benefit of pharmacological therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.
BACKGROUND
The estimated treatment effects of various combinations of contemporary HF medical therapies are not well characterized.
METHODS
We performed a systematic network meta-analysis, using MEDLINE/EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials published between January 1987 and January 2020. We included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate, ivabradine, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), vericiguat, and omecamtiv-mecarbil. The primary outcome was all-cause death. We estimated the life-years gained in 2 HF populations (BIOSTAT-CHF [BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure] and ASIAN-HF [Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Registry]).
RESULTS
We identified 75 relevant trials representing 95,444 participants. A combination of ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was most effective in reducing all-cause death (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.31-0.49); followed by ARNi, BB, MRA, and vericiguat (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.32-0.53); and ARNi, BB, and MRA (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.36-0.54). Results were similar for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for HF (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.29-0.46 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.35-0.56 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and omecamtiv-mecarbil; and HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.34-0.55 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and vericiguat). The estimated additional number of life-years gained for a 70-year-old patient on ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was 5.0 years (2.5-7.5 years) compared with no treatment in secondary analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the estimated aggregate benefit is greatest for a combination of ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i.
Topics: Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Heart Failure; Humans; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 34895860
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2021.09.004 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Nov 2014Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the reported effects of treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and hemodynamic parameters. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in hospital, length of stay in intensive care unit, duration of vasopressor use, functional outcomes, and serum calcium channel blocker concentrations.
METHODS
Medline/Ovid, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, TOXLINE, International pharmaceutical abstracts, Google Scholar, and the gray literature up to December 31, 2013 were searched without time restriction to identify all types of studies that examined effects of various treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning for the outcomes of interest. The search strategy included the following Keywords: [calcium channel blockers OR calcium channel antagonist OR calcium channel blocking agent OR (amlodipine or bencyclane or bepridil or cinnarizine or felodipine or fendiline or flunarizine or gallopamil or isradipine or lidoflazine or mibefradil or nicardipine or nifedipine or nimodipine or nisoldipine or nitrendipine or prenylamine or verapamil or diltiazem)] AND [overdose OR medication errors OR poisoning OR intoxication OR toxicity OR adverse effect]. Two reviewers independently selected studies and a group of reviewers abstracted all relevant data using a pilot-tested form. A second group analyzed the risk of bias and overall quality using the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) checklist and the Thomas tool for observational studies, the Institute of Health Economics tool for Quality of Case Series, the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines, and the modified NRCNA (National Research Council for the National Academies) list for animal studies. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence. Of 15,577 citations identified in the initial search, 216 were selected for analysis, including 117 case reports. The kappa on the quality analysis tools was greater than 0.80 for all study types.
RESULTS
The only observational study in humans examined high-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support. The risk of bias across studies was high for all interventions and moderate to high for extracorporeal life support. High-dose insulin. High-dose insulin (bolus of 1 unit/kg followed by an infusion of 0.5-2.0 units/kg/h) was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and lower mortality, at the risks of hypoglycemia and hypokalemia (low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal life support. Extracorporeal life support was associated with improved survival in patients with severe shock or cardiac arrest at the cost of limb ischemia, thrombosis, and bleeding (low quality of evidence). Calcium, dopamine, and norepinephrine. These agents improved hemodynamic parameters and survival without documented severe side effects (very low quality of evidence). 4-Aminopyridine. Use of 4-aminopyridine was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal studies, at the risk of seizures. Lipid emulsion therapy. Lipid emulsion was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal models of intravenous verapamil poisoning, but not in models of oral verapamil poisoning. Other studies. Studies on decontamination, atropine, glucagon, pacemakers, levosimendan, and plasma exchange reported variable results, and the methodologies used limit their interpretation. No trial was documented in humans poisoned with calcium channel blockers for Bay K8644, CGP 28932, digoxin, cyclodextrin, liposomes, bicarbonate, carnitine, fructose 1,6-diphosphate, PK 11195, or triiodothyronine. Case reports were only found for charcoal hemoperfusion, dialysis, intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella device and methylene blue.
CONCLUSIONS
The treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning is supported by low-quality evidence drawn from a heterogeneous and heavily biased literature. High-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support were the interventions supported by the strongest evidence, although the evidence is of low quality.
Topics: Animals; Calcium Channel Blockers; Disease Models, Animal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Overdose; Guidelines as Topic; Hospitalization; Humans; Insulin; Length of Stay; Observational Studies as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25283255
DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2014.965827 -
Cardiology Journal 2016There is growing controversy regarding the association between digoxin and mortality in atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this analysis was to systematically review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is growing controversy regarding the association between digoxin and mortality in atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this analysis was to systematically review digoxin use and risk of mortality in patients with AF.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, GoogleScholar, CINAHL, meeting abstracts, presentations, and Cochrane central databases were searched from inception through December 2014, without language restrictions. For a study to be selected, it had to report the risk of mortality associated with digoxin use in AF patients as an outcome measure. Data were extracted by 2 independent authors. Evidence tables were created.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies (6 post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials) with 111,978 digoxin users and 389,643 non-digoxin users were included. In a random effects model, patients treated with digoxin had a 27% increased risk of all-cause mortality (pooled HR 1.27; 95% CI 1.19-1.36) and 21% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (pooled HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.12-1.30) compared with those who did not use digoxin. In a random effects model, the association of digoxin with all-cause mortality was stronger for AF patients without heart failure (pooled HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.25-1.73) than AF patients with heart failure (pooled HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.07-1.36, interaction p = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS
Digoxin use in AF is associated with increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. The effect size was larger for AF patients without heart failure than AF patients with heart failure. The study suggests further directed analyses to study the effect that is suggested by this meta-analysis, especially in AF without heart failure.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Digoxin; Global Health; Humans; Survival Rate
PubMed: 27064796
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2016.0016 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2015Atrial fibrillation is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia characterised by the presence of fast and uncoordinated atrial activation leading to reduced atrial mechanical... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Atrial fibrillation is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia characterised by the presence of fast and uncoordinated atrial activation leading to reduced atrial mechanical function. Risk factors for atrial fibrillation include increasing age, male sex, co-existing cardiac and thyroid disease, pyrexial illness, electrolyte imbalance, cancer, and co-existing infection.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of oral medical treatments to control heart rate in people with chronic (defined as longer than 1 week for this review) non-valvular atrial fibrillation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found four studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: beta-blockers (rate-limiting, with or without digoxin), calcium-channel blockers (with or without digoxin), and digoxin.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atrial Fibrillation; Digoxin; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25994013
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2011Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort intolerance, fluid retention, and increased mortality. The 5-year mortality in people with systolic heart failure ranges from 25% to 75%, often owing to sudden death following ventricular arrhythmia. Risks of cardiovascular events are increased in people with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) or heart failure.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of multidisciplinary interventions for heart failure? What are the effects of exercise in people with heart failure? What are the effects of drug treatments for heart failure? What are the effects of devices for treatment of heart failure? What are the effects of coronary revascularisation for treatment of heart failure? What are the effects of drug treatments in people at high risk of heart failure? What are the effects of treatments for diastolic heart failure? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 80 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: aldosterone receptor antagonists, amiodarone, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, anticoagulation, antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, cardiac resynchronisation therapy, coronary revascularisation, digoxin (in people already receiving diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), exercise, hydralazine plus isosorbide dinitrate, implantable cardiac defibrillators, multidisciplinary interventions, non-amiodarone antiarrhythmic drugs, and positive inotropes (other than digoxin).
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; Heart Failure; Humans; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
PubMed: 21878135
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Feb 2010Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Heart failure occurs in 3% to 4% of adults aged over 65 years, usually as a consequence of coronary artery disease or hypertension, and causes breathlessness, effort intolerance, fluid retention, and increased mortality. The 5-year mortality in people with systolic heart failure ranges from 25% to 75%, often owing to sudden death following ventricular arrhythmia. Risks of cardiovascular events are increased in people with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) or heart failure.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug treatments, and of drug and invasive treatments, for heart failure? What are the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in people at high risk of heart failure? What are the effects of treatments for diastolic heart failure? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 85 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: aldosterone receptor antagonists; amiodarone; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; angiotensin II receptor blockers; anticoagulation; antiplatelet agents; beta-blockers; calcium channel blockers; cardiac resynchronisation therapy; digoxin (in people already receiving diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors); exercise; hydralazine plus isosorbide dinitrate; implantable cardiac defibrillators; multidisciplinary interventions; non-amiodarone antiarrhythmic drugs; and positive inotropes (other than digoxin).
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Heart Failure; Humans; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left
PubMed: 21718583
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2011Atrial fibrillation is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia characterised by the presence of fast and uncoordinated atrial activation leading to reduced atrial mechanical... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Atrial fibrillation is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia characterised by the presence of fast and uncoordinated atrial activation leading to reduced atrial mechanical function. Risk factors for atrial fibrillation include increasing age, male sex, co-existing cardiac and thyroid disease, pyrexial illness, electrolyte imbalance, cancer, and co-existing infection.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of oral medical treatments to control heart rate in people with chronic (defined as longer than 1 week for this review) non-valvular atrial fibrillation? What is the effect of different treatment strategies (rate versus rhythm) for people with persistent non-valvular atrial fibrillation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 23 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: beta-blockers (with or without digoxin), calcium channel blockers (with or without digoxin), calcium channel blockers (rate-limiting), digoxin, and rate versus rhythm control strategies.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atrial Fibrillation; Calcium Channel Blockers; Cardiovascular Diseases; Digoxin; Humans
PubMed: 22075545
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2008Atrial fibrillation is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia, which is characterised by the presence of fast and uncoordinated atrial activation leading to reduced atrial... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Atrial fibrillation is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia, which is characterised by the presence of fast and uncoordinated atrial activation leading to reduced atrial mechanical function. Risk factors for atrial fibrillation include increasing age, coexisting cardiac and thyroid disease, pyrexial illness, electrolyte imbalance, cancer, and coexisting infection.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of oral medical treatments to control heart rate in people with chronic (defined as longer than 1 week for this review) non-valvular atrial fibrillation? What is the effect of different treatment strategies (rate vs. rhythm) for people with persistent non-valvular atrial fibrillation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to August 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 18 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: beta-blockers (with or without digoxin), calcium channel blockers (with or without digoxin), calcium channel blockers (rate limiting), digoxin, and rate versus rhythm control strategies.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Function; Heart Rate; Humans; Risk Factors
PubMed: 19450316
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Aug 2015To clarify the impact of digoxin on death and clinical outcomes across all observational and randomised controlled trials, accounting for study designs and methods. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To clarify the impact of digoxin on death and clinical outcomes across all observational and randomised controlled trials, accounting for study designs and methods.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
Comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, reference lists, and ongoing studies according to a prospectively registered design (
PROSPERO
CRD42014010783), including all studies published from 1960 to July 2014 that examined treatment with digoxin compared with control (placebo or no treatment).
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Unadjusted and adjusted data pooled according to study design, analysis method, and risk of bias.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcome (all cause mortality) and secondary outcomes (including admission to hospital) were meta-analysed with random effects modelling.
RESULTS
52 studies were systematically reviewed, comprising 621,845 patients. Digoxin users were 2.4 years older than control (weighted difference 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.6), with lower ejection fraction (33% v 42%), more diabetes, and greater use of diuretics and anti-arrhythmic drugs. Meta-analysis included 75 study analyses, with a combined total of 4,006,210 patient years of follow-up. Compared with control, the pooled risk ratio for death with digoxin was 1.76 in unadjusted analyses (1.57 to 1.97), 1.61 in adjusted analyses (1.31 to 1.97), 1.18 in propensity matched studies (1.09 to 1.26), and 0.99 in randomised controlled trials (0.93 to 1.05). Meta-regression confirmed that baseline differences between treatment groups had a significant impact on mortality associated with digoxin, including markers of heart failure severity such as use of diuretics (P=0.004). Studies with better methods and lower risk of bias were more likely to report a neutral association of digoxin with mortality (P<0.001). Across all study types, digoxin led to a small but significant reduction in all cause hospital admission (risk ratio 0.92, 0.89 to 0.95; P<0.001; n=29,525).
CONCLUSIONS
Digoxin is associated with a neutral effect on mortality in randomised trials and a lower rate of admissions to hospital across all study types. Regardless of statistical analysis, prescription biases limit the value of observational data.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiotonic Agents; Digoxin; Heart Failure; Hospitalization; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26321114
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h4451 -
PloS One 2018During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
During recent years, systematic reviews of observational studies have compared digoxin to no digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, and the results of these reviews suggested that digoxin seems to increase the risk of all-cause mortality regardless of concomitant heart failure. Our objective was to assess the benefits and harms of digoxin for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter based on randomized clinical trials.
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-Expanded, BIOSIS for eligible trials comparing digoxin versus placebo, no intervention, or other medical interventions in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in October 2016. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were heart failure, stroke, heart rate control, and conversion to sinus rhythm. We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and chose the more conservative result as our primary result. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence.
RESULTS
28 trials (n = 2223 participants) were included. All were at high risk of bias and reported only short-term follow-up. When digoxin was compared with all control interventions in one analysis, we found no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.82; TSA-adjusted confidence interval (CI), 0.02 to 31.2; I2 = 0%); serious adverse events (RR, 1.65; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.24 to 11.5; I2 = 0%); quality of life; heart failure (RR, 1.05; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 1141.8; I2 = 51%); and stroke (RR, 2.27; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.00 to 7887.3; I2 = 17%). Our analyses on acute heart rate control (within 6 hours of treatment onset) showed firm evidence of digoxin being superior compared with placebo (mean difference (MD), -12.0 beats per minute (bpm); TSA-adjusted CI, -17.2 to -6.76; I2 = 0%) and inferior compared with beta blockers (MD, 20.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, 14.2 to 27.2; I2 = 0%). Meta-analyses on acute heart rate control showed that digoxin was inferior compared with both calcium antagonists (MD, 21.0 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -30.3 to 72.3) and with amiodarone (MD, 14.7 bpm; TSA-adjusted CI, -0.58 to 30.0; I2 = 42%), but in both comparisons TSAs showed that we lacked information. Meta-analysis on acute conversion to sinus rhythm showed that digoxin compared with amiodarone reduced the probability of converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm, but TSA showed that we lacked information (RR, 0.54; TSA-adjusted CI, 0.13 to 2.21; I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical effects of digoxin on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, quality of life, heart failure, and stroke are unclear based on current evidence. Digoxin seems to be superior compared with placebo in reducing the heart rate, but inferior compared with beta blockers. The long-term effect of digoxin is unclear, as no trials reported long-term follow-up. More trials at low risk of bias and low risk of random errors assessing the clinical effects of digoxin are needed.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016052935.
Topics: Aged; Amiodarone; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Bias; Calcium Channel Blockers; Comorbidity; Digoxin; Female; Heart Failure; Heart Rate; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mortality; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29518134
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193924