SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2024
Efficacy and safety of combined stent retriever and contact aspiration vs. stent retriever alone on revascularization in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aspiration, stent retriever, or combined approach for basilar artery occlusion: a three-way comparative analysis.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2026Article
- Evaluating predictive models for hemorrhagic transformation post-mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Whether the efficacy of combined stent retriever and contact aspiration (S + A) is superior to stent retriever (S) alone for revascularisation in patients with large vessel occlusive stroke remains uncertain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of combined stent retriever and contact aspiration for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke with large vessel occlusion by comparing it with stent retriever alone. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases for randomised controlled trials and observational studies (case-control and cohort studies) published before 1 October 2023 comparing the efficacy of combined stent retriever and contact aspiration versus tent retriever alone in patients with large vessel occlusive stroke. The end point of the primary efficacy observed in this meta-analysis study was the rate of first pass nearly complete or complete recanalisation (mTICI 2c-3). Secondary effectiveness nodes were: rate of first pass successful recanalisation (mTICI 2b-3), rate of near-complete or complete recanalisation of the postoperative vessel, rate of successful recanalisation of the postoperative vessel, and MRS 0-2 within 90 days. Safety endpoints were interoperative embolism, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality within 90 days. Results: A total of 16 studies were included in the literature for this meta-analysis, with a total of 7,320 patients (S + C group: 3,406, S group: 3,914). A comprehensive analysis of the included literature showed that combined stent retriever and contact aspiration had a higher rate of near-complete or complete recanalisation of the postoperative vessel [OR = 1.53, 95% CI (1.24, 1.88), Conclusion: Combined stent retriever and contact aspiration has a higher rate of postprocedural revascularisation (mTICI 2c-3/mTICI 2b-3) compared with stent retriever alone in patients with large vessel occlusion stroke. In addition, it was not superior to stenting alone in terms of the rate of first pass recanalisation (mTICI 2c-3/mTICI 2b-3), interoperative embolisation, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, good functional prognosis within 90 days and mortality within 90 days.
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.