FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 338:761-763 March 12, 1998 Number 11 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group Related Article by Caplan, L. R. PubMed Citation

To the Editor: Treatment of acute stroke seems to be controversial, as the Clinical Debate between Caplan et al. and Grotta (Oct. 30 issue)^1,2 shows. Caplan and colleagues, on the con side, and Grotta, on the pro side, all stand firmly on the same side of the main argument — namely, that patients with acute stroke should receive aggressive treatment. In the United States today, the real alternative to therapy with tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) is no therapy at all. Readers should not lose sight of this point in wading through the pros and cons of a specific treatment such . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hsia, A. W., Sachdev, H. S., Tomlinson, J., Hamilton, S. A., Tong, D. C. (2003). Efficacy of IV tissue plasminogen activator in acute stroke: Does stroke subtype really matter?. Neurology 61: 71-75 [Abstract] [Full Text]