ArticleMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022
Endovascular Treatment of Basilar Artery Occlusion: What Can We Learn from the Results?
Article in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Current guidelines lack specific endovascular treatment (EVT) recommendations for posterior circulation stroke (PCS). The results of earlier studies are controversial. We aimed to compare early hospital outcomes of stroke caused by large-vessel occlusion (LVO) treated with EVT or bridging therapy (BT) in anterior circulation stroke (ACS) versus PCS (middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) and basilar artery occlusion (BAO), and establish the risk factors for poor outcome. Materials and Methods: we analyzed the data of 279 subjects treated with EVT due to LVO-caused stroke in a comprehensive stroke centre in 2015−2021. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, secondary outcomes were National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) after 24 h, early neurological deterioration, futile recanalization (FR), the ambulatory outcome at discharge, and complications. Results: BAO presented with higher baseline NIHSS scores (19 vs. 14, p < 0.001), and longer door-to-puncture time (93 vs. 82 min, p = 0.034), compared to MCAO. Hospital mortality and the percentage of FR were the same in BAO and almost two times higher than in MCAO (20.0% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.048), other outcomes did not differ. In BAO, unsuccessful recanalization was the only significant predictor of the lethal outcome, though there were trends for PAD and RF predicting lethal outcome. A trend for higher risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) was observed in the BAO group when BT was applied. Nevertheless, neither BT nor sICH predicted lethal outcomes in the BAO group. Conclusions: Compared to the modern gold standard of EVT in the ACS, early outcomes in BAO remain poor, there is a substantial amount of FR. Nevertheless, unsuccessful recanalization remains the strongest predictor of lethal outcomes. BT in PCS might pose a higher risk for sICH, but not the lethal outcome, although this finding requires further investigation in larger trials.
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.