ArticleJournal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
Contact Aspiration Alone or Combined With Stent Retriever Thrombectomy for Middle Cerebral Artery Large Vessel Occlusion.
Article in Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging. 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
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe effectiveness of a large-bore aspiration catheter for contact aspiration (CA) thrombectomy is compared to the combined use of an aspiration catheter and a stent retriever (CA+SR) for large vessel occlusion (LVO). We assessed the efficacy and safety of CA alone versus CA+SR as first-line treatment for middle cerebral artery (MCA) LVO in daily practice.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from the SARA-3 registry of patients with MCA occlusion (M1 and M2 segments), dividing them into two groups: first-line CA alone and combined CA+SR. Demographic, clinical, angiographic, and clinical outcomes (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score at 24 h and modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score at 3 months) were compared.
resultsOf 551 patients, 348 (63.8%) received CA alone and 203 (36.8%) received CA+SR. The groin-to-reperfusion time was significantly shorter in the CA-alone group than in the combined CA+SR group (median, 26 vs. 40 min, p < 0.001). The CA group demonstrated higher first-pass modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 3 recanalization rates (47% vs. 37%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.5 [confidence interval 1-2.1], p = 0.042), a higher final mTICI 3 rate (65% vs. 56%; OR 1.5 [1-2.2], p = 0.037), and fewer new territory embolisms (0.9% vs. 3.9%; OR 0.2 [0-0.8], p = 0.028) compared to the CA+SR group. The CA-alone group had better functional outcomes at 3 months (mRS ≤ 2, 77% vs. 63%; OR 1.9 [1.3-3], p = 0.003).
conclusionsCA alone outperformed CA+SR as a first-line treatment for MCA LVO, yielding higher first-pass and final recanalization rates, lower new territory embolism risk, shorter procedure times, and better functional outcomes at 3 months.
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.