ArticleJournal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
New Stent Retriever Technology Versus Standard Devices for Anterior Large Vessel Thrombectomy: A Multicenter Study.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- New Stent Retriever Technology Versus Standard Devices for Anterior Large Vessel Thrombectomy: A Multicenter Study.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of NeuroimagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeGuidelines recommend stent retrievers (SRs) for treating large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke. We assessed noninferiority of the iNtercept (iVascular) SR with a self-expanding basket on a pusher wire versus contemporary SRs (CSRs) using propensity score (PS) matching analysis.
methodsWe analyzed data from the ROSSETTI multicenter registry of patients with anterior circulation LVO to compare procedural (recanalization rates according to the modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) score and procedural complications), clinical (modified Rankin Scale at 90 days), and safety (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, mortality at 90 days) outcomes of patients treated with iNtercept or CSRs (Solitaire, Trevo, and EmboTrap) as a first-line strategy, with or without balloon-guide catheter (BGC + SR, BCG - SR) after PS matching. Non-inferiority of iNtercept was established if the prespecified lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was over -10%.
resultsA total of 164 and 132 patients treated first-line by iNtercept were matched to 656 and 132 patients treated first-line by CSR + BGC and CSR - BGC, respectively. After matching, successful reperfusion (mTICI2b/3) after first-line strategy was achieved in 53.7% and 54.8% in the iNtercept versus CSR + BGC groups, respectively (absolute difference, -0.1%), and 53.8% and 51.3% in the iNtercept versus CSR - BGC, respectively (2.6%). Final reperfusion rates and favorable 90-day outcomes were similar. iNtercept had fewer sICH, procedural complications, and emboli in a new territory than CSR + BGC, and fewer procedural complications than CSR - BGC.
conclusionsThis multicenter registry with PS matching demonstrated the non-inferiority of iNtercept to approved CSRs for successful reperfusion in LVO acute ischemic stroke.
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.