Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29886714›Full record

ArticleJournal of stroke2018

Susceptibility Vessel Sign in the ASTER Trial: Higher Recanalization Rate and More Favourable Clinical Outcome after First Line Stent Retriever Compared to Contact Aspiration.

Romain Bourcier, Mickael Mazighi, Julien Labreuche, Robert Fahed, Raphael Blanc, Benjamin Gory, Alain Duhamel, Gaultier Marnat, Suzana Saleme, Vincent Costalat and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of stroke, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Deep learning prediction of stroke thrombus red blood cell content from multiparametric MRI.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Romain BourcierDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Guillaume et René Laennec University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Mickael MazighiDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Rothschild Foundation, Paris, France.
Julien LabreucheDepartment of Biostatistics, University Lille, CHRU Lille, Lille, France.
Robert FahedDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Rothschild Foundation, Paris, France.
Raphael BlancDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Rothschild Foundation, Paris, France.
Benjamin GoryDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, France.
Alain DuhamelDepartment of Biostatistics, University Lille, CHRU Lille, Lille, France.
Gaultier MarnatDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Suzana SalemeDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Limoges, Limoges, France.
Vincent CostalatDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Serge BracardDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Nancy, Nancy, France.
Hubert DesalDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Guillaume et René Laennec University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Arturo ConsoliDepartment of Stroke Center and Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University of Versailles and Saint Quentin en Yvelines, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
Michel PiotinDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Rothschild Foundation, Paris, France.
Bertrand LapergueDepartment of Stroke Center and Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University of Versailles and Saint Quentin en Yvelines, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.
ASTER Trial Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeIn the Aspiration vs. Stent Retriever for Successful Revascularization (ASTER) trial, which evaluated contact aspiration (CA) versus stent retriever (SR) use as first-line technique, the impact of the susceptibility vessel sign (SVS) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was studied to determine its influence on trial results.

methodsWe included patients having undergone CA or SR for M1 or M2 occlusions, who were screened by MRI with T2

resultsAmong the 202 patients included, 143 patients were SVS (+) (70.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.5% to 77.1%). Overall, there was no difference in angiographic and clinical outcomes according to SVS status. However, compared to SR, CA achieved a lower mTICI 2c/3 rate in SVS (+) patients (risk ratio [RR] for CA vs. SR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.71) but not in SVS (-) (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.77;

conclusionsAs a first line strategy, SR achieved higher recanalization rates and a more favourable clinical outcome at 3 months compared to CA when MRI shows SVS within the thrombus.

Indexed as

Aspiration catheterRetrieval deviceThrombectomyThrombosis

Identifiers

PMID29886714
PMCPMC6007297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.