ArticleCerebrovascular diseases extra2026
Endovascular Therapy for Isolated M2 Occlusion in Patients with Ischemic Stroke: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Article in Cerebrovascular diseases extra, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEndovascular therapy (EVT) is an established treatment for large vessel occlusion in patients with acute ischaemic stroke; however, its efficacy for medium vessel occlusions, particularly isolated M2 segment occlusions, remains uncertain. As M2 occlusions are relatively proximal among medium vessel occlusions and can cause disabling neurological deficits, clarifying the role of EVT is clinically important. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EVT compared with best medical management (BMM) in patients with acute isolated M2 occlusion using data from a multicentre registry.
methodsWe analysed the data of patients from a multicentre stroke registry who had an isolated M2 occlusion, had arrived within 24 h of onset, and were functionally independent before stroke. Data on baseline demographics, vascular risk factors, stroke characteristics, and treatment were collected. Propensity score matching generated 100 well-balanced pairs of EVT- and BMM-treated patients. The primary outcomes were favourable functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score of 0-2 or 0-1) and mortality at discharge and 3 months. The secondary outcomes included neurological improvement or deterioration and haemorrhagic complications during hospitalisation.
resultsAmong 594 eligible patients (EVT, n = 118; BMM, n = 476), data from 100 matched pairs were analysed. At 3 months, good functional outcomes (mRS score of 0-2: 49% EVT vs. 46% BMM) and mortality (7% vs. 9%) were comparable, with consistent findings at discharge. EVT was associated with higher rates of any intracranial haemorrhage (46% vs. 21%), although the symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage rates were identical (5%). In exploratory subgroup analyses, a significant interaction with onset-to-door time was observed for mRS score of 0-2 (p = 0.03), whereas no significant interaction was detected for mRS score of 0-1 or mortality.
conclusionIn this multicentre registry of patients with isolated M2 occlusion, EVT was not associated with superior functional outcomes or reduced mortality, compared with BMM. Although exploratory analyses suggested possible heterogeneity of treatment effect according to clinical factors, such as time from onset, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Overall, the results highlight the heterogeneity of M2 occlusions and underscore the need for adequately powered randomised trials to inform individualised treatment decisions.
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.