ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Full Medical Support versus Limited Medical Care in Malignant Middle Cerebral Artery Infarction after Successful Recanalization for Large-Vessel Occlusion Stroke.
Article in Neurocritical care, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA subset of patients with anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke progressed to malignant middle cerebral artery infarction (mMCAi) despite successful recanalization following endovascular treatment. This study investigated whether full medical support (FMS) could improve functional outcomes beyond reducing mortality in this population.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, consecutive patients from hospital-based stroke registry (May 2015 to August 2021) with anterior LVO stroke who developed mMCAi despite successful recanalization were included. Patients were stratified into two groups on the basis of the intensity of postprocedural care: the FMS group (aggressive neurocritical care) and the non-FMS group (limited medical support or comfort care). The primary outcome was survival without severe disability, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-4 at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included ordinal shift analysis of the mRS, rates of functional independence (mRS 0-2 and 0-3), and 90-day mortality.
resultsAmong 114 eligible patients, 65 were assigned to the FMS group and 49 to the non-FMS group. The FMS group demonstrated a significantly higher rate of the primary outcome (46.2% vs. 6.1%; P < 0.001) along with a markedly lower 90-day mortality (23.1% vs. 81.6%; P < 0.001) compared with the non-FMS group. After adjustment for age, gender, and confounders, FMS remained independently associated with increased odds of achieving mRS 0-4 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 5.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-26.40; P = 0.021) and with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.42; P < 0.001), while no statistically significant difference was observed in the proportion of patients achieving an mRS of 0-2 or in those achieving an mRS of 0-3.
conclusionsIn patients who developed mMCAi after successful recanalization, FMS is associated with a greater likelihood of survival without severe disability (mRS 0-4). These findings suggest that withdrawal of aggressive medical care in this population should be approached with caution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41986794What 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.