ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Middle Cerebral Artery M2 Thrombectomy: Safety and Technical Considerations in the German Stroke Registry (GSR).
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endovascular treatment versus standard medical management in primary M3 or M4 occlusion stroke in clinical practice: the oriental-MeVO registry.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Early surrogates of functional outcome after thrombectomy for MCA-M2 occlusions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A review of acute ischemic stroke caused by distal, medium vessel occlusions.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Review
- The initial experience with the Embotrap III stent-retriever in a real world setting.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2024Article
- Multicenter investigation of technical and clinical outcomes after thrombectomy for Proximal Medium Vessel Occlusion (pMeVO) by frontline technique.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2024Article
- Endovascular treatment of primary M3 occlusion stroke in clinical practice: analysis of the German Stroke Registry.Neurological research and practice · 2024Article
- Thrombectomy in M2 occlusion compared to M1 occlusion: treatment effects of Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (TICI) 2b and TICI 3 recanalization on functional outcome.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is ongoing debate concerning the safety and efficacy of various mechanical thrombectomy (MT) approaches for M2 occlusions. We compared these for MT in M2 versus M1 occlusions. Subgroup analyses of different technical approaches within the M2 MT cohort were also performed. Patients were included from the German Stroke Registry (GSR), a multicenter registry of consecutive MT patients. Primary outcomes were reperfusion success events. Secondary outcomes were early clinical improvement (improvement in NIHSS score > 4) and independent survival at 90 days (mRS 0−2). Out of 3804 patients, 2689 presented with M1 (71%) and 1115 with isolated M2 occlusions (29%). The mean age was 76 (CI 65−82) and 77 (CI 66−83) years, respectively. Except for baseline NIHSS (15 (CI 10−18) vs. 11 (CI 6−16), p < 0.001) and ASPECTS (9 (CI 7−10) vs. 9 (CI 8−10, p < 0.001), baseline demographics were balanced. Apart from a more frequent use of dedicated small vessel stent retrievers (svSR) in M2 (17.4% vs. 3.0; p < 0.001), intraprocedural aspects were balanced. There was no difference in ICH at 24 h (11%; p = 1.0), adverse events (14.4% vs. 18.1%; p = 0.63), clinical improvement (62.5% vs. 61.4 %; p = 0.57), mortality (26.9% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.23). In M2 MT, conventional stent retriever (cSR) achieved higher rates of mTICI3 (54.0% vs. 37.7−42.0%; p < 0.001), requiring more MT-maneuvers (7, CI 2−8) vs. 2 (CI 2−7)/(CI 2−2); p < 0.001) and without impact on efficacy and outcome. Real-life MT in M2 can be performed with equal safety and efficacy as in M1 occlusions. Different recanalization techniques including the use of svSR did not result in significant differences regarding safety, efficacy and outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.