ArticleEuropean stroke journal2025
Endovascular treatment for isolated cervical internal carotid artery occlusion: ETIICA study.
Article in European stroke journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive Outcomes After Reperfusion Therapy for Acute Ischaemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and the PRECISE-ACTION Framework for Transdisciplinary Cognitive Management.Clinical drug investigation · 2026Article
- Safety of Endovascular Thrombectomy in Isolated Cervical Internal Carotid Artery Occlusion While on Oral Anticoagulation.Journal of stroke · 2026Article
- Revascularization treatments within 4.5 h after onset in acute ischemic stroke with isolated extracranial artery occlusion.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Emergent Carotid Stenting During Endovascular Therapy for Isolated Cervical Internal Carotid Artery Occlusion.Journal of stroke · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
84 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEvidence regarding the benefit of endovascular therapy (EVT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to isolated cervical internal carotid artery occlusion (c-ICA-O) is lacking. We assessed the outcomes and safety of EVT in patients with isolated c-ICA-O.
methodsRetrospective multicenter cohort study of patients with an AIS due to isolated c-ICA-O, within 24-h since last-seen-well. Comparisons were made between EVT and best medical therapy (BMT). The primary outcome was 3-months modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ordinal shift. Secondary outcomes included 3-month favorable outcome (mRS 0-2, or return to pre-stroke mRS), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and any parenchymal hemorrhage. Outcomes were compared combining inverse probability of treatment weighting with regression models and propensity score matching (PSM) as sensitivity analysis.
resultsWe analyzed 998 patients (66.2% male, mean age 71.1 ± 13.2 years). 487 (48.8%) patients received EVT and 511 (51.2%) received BMT. Patients receiving EVT had a higher admission NIHSS [13 (7-18) vs 5 (2-13)] compared to BMT. There was no difference between EVT and BMT groups in 3-month mRS shift (adjusted common odds ratio [OR], 1.01 [95% CI 0.76-1.34]) and favorable outcome (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.16 [95% CI 0.84-1.60]). No patient (0%) in the BMT group had sICH versus 1.6% in the EVT group. Parenchymal hemorrhage was numerically higher in EVT patients (2.7% vs 0.6%; aOR 3.85 [95% CI 0.98-15.23]). PSM analysis revealed similar results. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionIn patients with isolated c-ICA-O, EVT was associated with similar odds of disability and intracranial bleeding compared to BMT. Randomized-controlled clinical trials in patients with isolated c-ICA-O are warranted.
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.