Trial reportStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2023
RESCUE-ICAS: Rationale and Study Design.
Trial report in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2023. 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.
- Effect of Acute Intracranial Stenting in Patients With Successful Reperfusion Following Large-Vessel Occlusion Secondary to Intracranial Atherosclerosis: Secondary Analyses of the RESCUE-ICAS Study.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Management of intracranial arterial stenosis during mechanical thrombectomy: Survey of neuro-interventionalists.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026Article
- Hypoperfusion Intensity Ratio as a Predictive Marker in Pre-Endovascular Treatment Perfusion Magnetic Resonance Image for Acute Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion with Intracranial Atherosclerosis.Cerebrovascular diseases extra · 2026Article
- The Future of Endovascular Therapy for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
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
Background: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) failure occurs in ≈10% to 20% of MTs. Among the common causes of failed MT is residual underlying intracranial stenosis (ICAS), typically attributable to atherosclerotic disease. ICAS large-vessel occlusion (ICAS-LVO) remains poorly understood, and management of ICAS-LVO is unclear. The RESCUE-ICAS (Registry of Emergent Large Vessel Occlusion Due to Intracranial Stenosis) aims at providing better understanding of the prevalence of ICAS-LVO, and the overall safety and efficacy of various rescue therapies. Methods: RESCUE-ICAS is a multicenter, international, prospective registry that is currently enrolling patients with ICAS-LVO who underwent MT. All sites are required to report monthly MT cases that meet inclusion criteria. The decision of whether to use rescue therapy is up to the interventionist. Results: We will collect patients' demographic, clinical, and radiographic data at baseline. Also, we will capture variables related to the MT procedure and rescue therapy (if performed), and postprocedural clinical and imaging variables. Outcomes include the rate of successful recanalization, defined by modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of ≥2b, the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, the 90-day modified Rankin scale score, and mortality. Conclusions: No strong evidence is currently available to support an optimal treatment strategy for patients with ICAS-LVO undergoing MT. RESCUE-ICAS is a prospective cohort study that will provide important data to help design randomized controlled trials.
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.