<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cunningham, Muriel</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Qureshi, Adnan I.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Insights from the ATACH Trial</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MD Conference Express</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008-04-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9-9</style></pages><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">What is the most appropriate treatment of acute hypertensive response after intracerebral hemorrhage? Over time, two schools of thought have emerged: one that thinks blood pressure should not be treated because hematoma expansion is uncommon and perihematoma ischemia is a concern, and one that takes the opposite position. The goal of the open-label Antihypertensive Treatment of Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage trial [ATACH] was to determine the tolerability and safety of three different systolic blood pressure goals using IV nicardipine.</style></abstract><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">8</style></volume></record></records></xml>