4.4 Article

Xingnaojing for Moderate-to-severe Acute ischemic Stroke (XMAS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Journal

TRIALS
Volume 18, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-017-2222-y

Keywords

Xingnaojing injection; Chinese medicine; Acute ischemic stroke; Randomized controlled trial

Funding

  1. National Key Technology RD Program [2014BAI10B05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Xingnaojing injection (XNJ) is widely used for the treatment of stroke in China. However, there is currently a lack of high-quality evidence of its efficacy for acute ischemic stroke. The main objective of this study is to determine whether the addition of XNJ to standard care improves the 3-month functional outcome in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods/design: The XMAS study is a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled, open-label trial with a blinded endpoints design. A total of 720 patients will be randomly allocated to either the intervention or the control group in a 1: 1 ratio. The intervention group receives XNJ combined with standard care, and the control group receives standard care alone. XNJ will be administered intravenously every 12 h for 10 days. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who are independent at 3 months after stroke onset defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2. Secondary outcomes include early neurological deterioration at 48 h, the change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, patient-reported outcome, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 10 days, the Barthel Index score, deaths from any cause and cardiovascular events at 3 months. Discussion: The results of this trial will provide critical evidence for XNJ in the treatment of AIS as a complementary approach that can be initiated after reperfusion therapy or when the AIS is not eligible for thrombolytic treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available