ArticleStroke2026
Outcomes and Safety of Revascularization Approaches for Stroke Related to Isolated Vertebral Artery Occlusions (BRAVO).
Article in Stroke, 2026. 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
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe best revascularization strategy for acute ischemic stroke from isolated vertebral artery occlusion remains unclear.
methodsThis retrospective, international, multicenter cohort study included patients from 30 comprehensive stroke centers across Europe (n=23), North America (n=5), and Asia (n=2) between 2016 and 2022. Eligible patients presented with acute ischemic stroke within 24 hours of last seen well and had imaging-confirmed isolated vertebral artery occlusion. Two treatment comparisons were analyzed: intravenous thrombolysis (IVT)-only versus conservative treatment (Cx), and endovascular treatment (EVT)±IVT versus medical management (Cx and IVT). The primary outcome was the shift in 3-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score; secondary outcomes included early neurological improvement (24-hour-delta National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score), recanalization, early neurological deterioration of ischemic origin, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and 3-month mortality. Analyses were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).
resultsAmong 494 patients, 143 (29%) received Cx, 218 (44%) IVT-only, and 133 (27%) EVT±IVT. Compared with Cx, IVT-only showed similar 3-month mRS score (IPTW-adjusted odds ratio [aOR] mRS shift score, 1.32 [95% CI, 0.80-2.18]), greater early neurological improvement (IPTW-adjusted-β coefficient, -1 [95% CI, -2.05 to 0.05]), and higher recanalization rates (IPTW-aOR, 4.33 [95% CI, 1.36-13.78]). Compared with MM (=IVT+Cx), EVT±IVT was associated with an unfavorable mRS shift score (IPTW-aOR mRS shift score, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35-0.74]), higher early neurological deterioration of ischemic origin (IPTW-aOR, 9.06 [95% CI, 2.86-28.67]), and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (IPTW-aOR, 6.05 [95% CI, 1.14-32.1]) though recanalization was over 4-fold higher (OR, 4.64 [95% CI, 1.90-11.33]). Patients with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≥10 showed point estimates favoring EVT+IVT (
conclusionsIVT-only appeared safe and was associated with better early recovery and recanalization. EVT±IVT showed overall worse outcomes, potentially due to increased early neurological deterioration of ischemic origin and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage rates, but may confer benefit in moderate-to-severe strokes, warranting prospective trials in symptomatic isolated vertebral artery occlusion.
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.