The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The ACCESS Study: Evaluation of Acute Candesartan Cilexetil Therapy in Stroke Survivors
Open accessAbstract
Background and Purpose— The Acute Candesartan Cilexetil Therapy in Stroke Survivors (ACCESS) study was designed to assess the safety of modest blood pressure reduction by candesartan cilexetil in the early treatment of stroke. The study was also designed to provide an estimate of the number of cases required to perform a larger phase III efficacy study. Methods— Five hundred patients were recruited in a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter phase II study. Results— This safety trial was stopped prematurely when 342 patients (339 valid) had been randomized because of an imbalance in end points. Demographic data, cardiovascular risk factors, and blood pressure on admission, on study onset, and within the whole study period were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, the cumulative 12-month mortality and the number of vascular events differed significantly in favor of the candesartan cilexetil group (odds ratio, 0.475; 95% CI, 0.252 to 0.895). There were no significant differences in concomitant medication and in number or type of side effects. Conclusions— Although the mechanisms by which angiotensin type 1 (AT 1 ) receptor blockade affects cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are still unresolved, the present study shows that early neurohumoral inhibition has similar beneficial effects in cerebral and in myocardial ischemia. The fact that no cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event occurred as a result of hypotension is of significant clinical importance. When there is need for or no contraindication against early antihypertensive therapy, candesartan cilexetil is a safe therapeutic option according to the ACCESS results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Mancia, G., Fagard, R., Narkiewicz, K., Redón, J., Zanchetti, A., Böhm, M., Christiaens, T., Cifkova, R., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2013) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/01.hjh.0000431740.32696.cc · Cited by 5,655
Authors/Task Force Members:, Mancia, G., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., Cifkova, R., Fagard, R., Germano, G., Grassi, G., Heagerty, A. M., Kjeldsen, S. E., et al. (2006) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm236 · Cited by 2,384
Sacco, R. L., Adams, R., Albers, G., Alberts, M. J., Benavente, O., Furie, K., Goldstein, L. B., Gorelick, P., Halperin, J., Harbaugh, R., et al. (2006) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000199147.30016.74 · Cited by 1,873
The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (JSH 2019)
Umemura, S., Arima, H., Arima, S., Asayama, K., Dohi, Y., Hirooka, Y., Horio, T., Hoshide, S., Ikeda, S., Ishimitsu, T., et al. (2019) · Hypertension Research · doi:10.1038/s41440-019-0284-9 · Cited by 1,880
Mancia, G., Laurent, S., Agabiti-Rosei, E., Ambrosioni, E., Burnier, M., Caulfield, M. J., Cifkova, R., Clément, D., Coca, A., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2009) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0b013e328333146d · Cited by 1,643
Metadata
- Authors
- Schrader, J., Lüders, S., Kulschewski, A., Berger, J., Zidek, W., Treib, J., Einhäupl, K., Diener, H. C., & Dominiak, P.
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1699-1703
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- OpenAlex
- W2086199925
- Cited by
- 652
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The ACCESS Study: Evaluation of Acute Candesartan Cilexetil Therapy in Stroke Survivors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.0000075777.18006.89
- The paper
- Schrader, J., Lüders, S., Kulschewski, A., Berger, J., Zidek, W., Treib, J., Einhäupl, K., Diener, H. C., & Dominiak, P. (2003). The ACCESS Study: Evaluation of Acute Candesartan Cilexetil Therapy in Stroke Survivors. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000075777.18006.89
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.