ArticleEuropean stroke journal2023
Association between type of intervention center and outcomes after endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke: Results from the MR CLEAN Registry.
Article in European stroke journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is performed in intervention centers that provide the full range of neuro(endo)vascular care (level 1) and centers that only perform EVT for AIS (level 2). We compared outcomes between these center types and assessed whether differences in outcomes could be explained by center volume (CV). Patients and methods: We analyzed patients included in the MR CLEAN Registry (2014-2018), a registry of all EVT-treated patients in the Netherlands. Our primary outcome was the shift on the modified Rankin scale (mRS) after 90 days (ordinal regression). Secondary outcomes were the NIHSS 24-48 h post-EVT, door-to-groin time (DTGT), procedure time (linear regression), and recanalization (binary logistic regression). We compared outcomes between level 1 and 2 centers using multilevel regression models, with center as random intercept. We adjusted for relevant baseline factors, and in case of observed differences, we additionally adjusted for CV. Results: Of the 5144 patients 62% were treated in level 1 centers. We observed no significant differences between center types in mRS (adjusted(a)cOR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.54), NIHSS (aβ: 0.31, 95% CI: -0.52 to 1.14), procedure duration (aβ: 0.88, 95% CI: -5.21 to 6.97), or DTGT (aβ: 4.24, 95% CI: -7.09 to 15.57). The probability for recanalization was higher in level 1 centers compared to level 2 centers (aOR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.33), and this difference probably depended on CV. Conclusions: We found no significant differences, that were independent of CV, in the outcomes of EVT for AIS between level 1 and level 2 intervention centers.
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.