ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Safety of emergent carotid stenting after thrombolysis: a multicenter retrospective matched analysis.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. 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.
- Endovascular management of tandem occlusions: current evidence and future directions.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2026Review
- Technical effectiveness and safety of emergent stenting in patients with acute ischemic stroke and carotid near-occlusion.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMechanical thrombectomy (MT) with emergent carotid artery stenting (eCAS) has been suggested to provide greater benefits for patients with tandem lesions (TL), but there is uncertainty about the most appropriate peri-procedural antiplatelet therapy for patients at higher risk of brain hemorrhage. This study aimed to assess the safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in patients with acute TL undergoing MT with eCAS.
methodsThe databases of 17 stroke centers were retrospectively screened for consecutive patients with acute TL who underwent MT and eCAS. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to evaluate the safety of IVT, balancing for peri-procedural antiplatelet therapies. Primary outcome measures were the occurrence of parenchymal hemorrhage (PH) type 2 and mortality within 90 days from the index event. Secondary outcome measures included occurrence of PH type 1, extracranial bleeding events, early stent thrombosis, efficient recanalization after MT and the 90-day functional outcome.
resultsAmong 560 enrolled patients, 47.3% received IVT prior to the endovascular procedure. After PSM, there was no significant difference between patients treated with and without IVT under different antiplatelet regimens concerning the rates of PH type 2 (5.2% versus 6.9%, p = 0.7, respectively) and of mortality of any cause (7.5% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.8). In addition, IVT did not impact recanalization rates or clinical outcome.
conclusionsThe safety of MT with eCAS in acute TL is not affected by prior IVT. Furthermore, IVT does not ameliorate recanalization rates and clinical outcome. These findings are exploratory and require validation through future randomized controlled studies.
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.