ArticleCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2024
Benefit of endovascular treatment for primary versus secondary medium vessel occlusion: A multi-center experience.
Article in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of occlusion site on the effectiveness and safety of endovascular thrombectomy for large ischemic cores: a cohort study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Outcomes After Thrombectomy for Primary and Secondary Medium Vessel MCA Occlusions: a Nationwide Registry Study.Clinical neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Benefit of endovascular treatment for primary versus secondary medium vessel occlusion: A multi-center experience.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of endovascular treatment (EVT) in patients with primary versus secondary medium vessel occlusion (MeVO).
methodsFrom the endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in the China registry, we collected consecutive patients with MeVO who received EVT. The primary endpoint was a good outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0 to 2 at 90 days.
results154 patients were enrolled in the final analysis, including 74 primary MeVO and 80 secondary MeVO. A good outcome at 90 days was achieved in 42 (56.8%) patients with primary MeVO and 33 (41.3%) patients with secondary MeVO. There was a higher probability of good outcomes in patients with the primary vs secondary MeVO (adjusted odds ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 4.46; p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in secondary and safety outcomes between MeVO groups. In the multivariable analysis, baseline ASPECTS (p = 0.001), final modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score (p = 0.01), and any ICH (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with good outcomes in primary MeVO patients, while baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (p = 0.002), groin puncture to recanalization time (p = 0.02), and early neurological improvement (p < 0.001) were factors associated with good outcome in secondary MeVO patients.
conclusionIn MeVO patients who received EVT, there was a higher likelihood of poor outcomes in patients with secondary versus primary MeVO.
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.