ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Contemporary Trends in Utilization of Rescue Intracranial Stenting During Mechanical Thrombectomy in Patients With Stroke in the United States.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rescue intracranial stenting (RICS) is increasingly recognized as a potentially effective rescue strategy following failed mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for large vessel occlusion due to intracranial atherosclerosis, but population-level data on contemporary patterns of RICS utilization in MT are lacking. The aim of this study is to describe trends in the utilization of RICS in MT in the United States in the last decade. Methods: We conducted a serial cross-sectional study using all primary acute ischemic stroke (AIS) admissions with MT in the 2010-2020 National Inpatient Sample. RICS admissions were defined as those with procedural codes for "percutaneous insertion of intracranial vascular stent" on same day as MT. We used joinpoint regression to evaluate trends in RICS over time and utilized multivariable-adjusted regression to compare odds of in-hospital mortality and routine home discharge between RICS versus non-RICS admissions over time. Results: Of the 5 190 148 primary AIS admissions in the United States across the study period, 3.0% had codes for MT. The proportion of MT admissions increased by over 8-fold from 0.8% in 2010 to 6.5% in 2020. RICS was utilized in 1.8% of MT admissions but this proportion declined by 5.4% annually (annualized percentage change [APC] -5.4% [95% CI, -7.7% to -3.1%]). However, as a proportion of all AIS admissions, RICS in all AIS increased by 20.5% annually (APC 20.5%, [95% CI, 16.0%-25.2%]). Odds of in-hospital mortality did not differ between RICS compared to non-RICS MT admissions (odds ratio 1.39 [95% CI, 0.83-2.32]) but RICS admissions had 50% lower odds of routine home discharge compared with non-RICS admissions. Conclusion: RICS is utilized in just under 2% of MT admissions in the United States. This proportion has declined over time but because of increased MT usage in AIS over time, overall utilization in AIS has increased exponentially over time.
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.