2025 update to European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on blood pressure management in acute ischaemic stroke and intracerebral haemorrhage

ESO · 2026 · Europe

Source and licence

Authors
Else Charlotte Sandset, Lina Palaiodimou, Silje Holt Jahr et al.
Title
2025 update to European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on blood pressure management in acute ischaemic stroke and intracerebral haemorrhage
Journal
European Stroke Journal, 2026
Licence
CC BY 4.0
Changes
Verbatim excerpts; formatting adapted

Full text retrieved 2026-10-27 from Europe PMC · PMC13151662

Licence statement of the original publication

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This page reproduces excerpts of the original publication; the original is authoritative. It has not been reviewed by a physician, does not state a recommendation of Medelix and does not replace medical advice. The guideline may have been updated since.

Open the original publication →Full text on Europe PMC

Recommendations

We found no explicitly labelled recommendations in this publication; its recommendations are in the running text of the original.

Abstract

Optimal blood pressure (BP) management in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) and acute ICH remains uncertain. In light of new data published since the previous ESO guidelines, this update provides revised, evidence-based recommendations across 8 key clinical questions to support BP management in acute stroke. The guidelines were developed using the ESO standard operating procedure and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, including literature searches, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of relevant RCTs, assessment of evidence quality and formulation of specific recommendations. We advise against routine pre-hospital BP lowering in suspected stroke (moderate-certainty evidence). In AIS patients undergoing reperfusion therapy, we recommend maintaining BP < 185/110 mmHg before the bolus of intravenous thrombolysis and < 180/105 mmHg during and for 24 h after intravenous thrombolysis (low-certainty evidence) and/or mechanical thrombectomy (moderate-certainty evidence). We recommend against intensively lowering systolic BP < 140 mmHg in the first 24 h after successful mechanical thrombectomy (high-certainty evidence). Routine use of vasopressors to raise BP in AIS patients with neurological deterioration who are not treated with acute reperfusion therapies is discouraged (low-certainty evidence). In acute ICH, the net clinical benefit of intensive BP lowering remains uncertain; however, expert consensus supports early systolic BP reduction to < 140 mmHg in patients with small-to-moderate haematomas to limit haematoma expansion. Overall, the updated recommendations reaffirm the core principles of current clinical practice while providing more nuanced guidance for specific scenarios. However, the quality of evidence remains moderate to very low, limited by a lack of high-quality RCTs, methodological issues, inconsistent results and study heterogeneity. Consequently, most recommendations are weak and supported by expert consensus. These guidelines provide specific recommendations on BP thresholds and management strategies tailored to distinct acute stroke subgroups. They also highlight the ongoing uncertainty and emphasise the need for future RCTs to define optimal BP targets, timing, treatment strategies and ideal antihypertensive agents across different clinical contexts.

Contents of the original publication

The section headings of the original.

  • Table of Contents
  • Introduction
  • Methods
  • Composition and approval of the module working group
  • Development and approval of clinical questions
  • Results
  • PICO 1
  • Analysis of current evidence
  • PICO 2
  • Analysis of current evidence
  • PICO 3
  • Analysis of current evidence
  • PICO 4
  • Analysis of current evidence
  • PICO 5
  • Analysis of current evidence
  • PICO 6
  • Analysis of current evidence
  • PICO 7
  • Analysis of current evidence
  • Discussion
  • Contributor Information
  • Ethical approval

A question about this guideline?

Medelix answers clinical questions from guidelines and studies – every statement with its source.

Are you the rights holder and object to this reproduction? Write to contact@medelix.ai and we will take the page down promptly. Imprint