ArticleNeurosurgical review2026
Endovascular revascularization for progressive stroke beyond conventional time windows: safety, efficacy, and predictors of technical failure and restenosis.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Progressive stroke (PS) due to intracranial large vessel lesions (LVLs) has limited treatment options. While endovascular revascularization (EVR) is proposed as a salvage therapy, evidence beyond the conventional therapeutic window is scarce. This multicenter retrospective study evaluated the safety, efficacy, and durability of EVR in PS patients attributable to intracranial LVLs beyond the conventional therapeutic window. We retrospectively analyzed PS patients (NIHSS increase ≥ 4) with intracranial LVLs (severe stenosis > 70% or occlusion), infarct core ≤ 70 mL, and confirmed hypoperfusion who underwent EVR at three centers (2020-2024). Outcomes included technical success, perioperative complications, restenosis, and stroke recurrence. A total of 76 patients (median age 62 years; 71.4% male) were included: with 46 presenting with stenosis and 30 with occlusion. The mean interval from symptom onset to progression was 3.92 ± 1.59 days. Technical success was achieved in 96.1% (73/76) of patients; the three failures were all Mori C lesions with blunt stump morphology on baseline angiography, consistent with chronic occlusions of relatively long duration. Perioperative complications occurred in 7.9% (6/76), with only 2.6% (2/76) resulting in disabling symptoms at discharge. The mean NIHSS score decreased significantly from 10.11 ± 3.43 preoperatively to 5.14 ± 3.07 at discharge (p < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 11.9 months, the overall restenosis rate was 22.9% (16/70), with 6.8% (5/70) being symptomatic. Restenosis rates varied significantly by treatment modality: 31.3% for balloon angioplasty alone, 22.6% for self-expanding stents, and 11.5% for balloon-expandable stents (p for trend = 0.041). Critically, within the balloon-expandable cohort, no in-stent restenosis was observed in the drug-eluting NOVA stent subgroup (0/12, 0%), compared to 21.4% (3/14) in the bare-metal Apollo stent subgroup. Smoking was identified as an independent risk factor for restenosis, with continued smoking after EVR associated with significantly higher ISR rates (69.2% vs. 29.4%; OR = 5.40, p = 0.038). The rate of recurrent ischemic events in the target territory was 8.2% (6/73). EVR appears to be feasible, safe and effective in carefully selected PS patients with LVLs beyond conventional time windows. However, long-term durability seems dependent on the revascularization modality, with intracranial DES showing encouraging patency. Additionally, smoking cessation may significantly reduce restenosis risk. These findings support the integration of EVR into the therapeutic options for PS and highlight the necessity of preoperative imaging evaluation. Nevertheless, these results require confirmation in larger prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42223689What 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.