ArticleEuropean stroke journal2026
Simple against advanced imaging for the selection of stroke therapy in the extended window (VESTA study).
Article in European stroke journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05299034 (Treatment of Stroke in the Extended Window), which is not on this 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.
Treatment of Stroke in the Extended Window: Optimization of the Radiological Selection and Transfer Model in Patients With a Stroke Presenting 6-24h After Symptoms Onset (VESTA Study)
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
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe optimal imaging modality for selecting stroke patients for revascularisation in the extended window remains uncertain. The VESTA study compared simple (non-contrast CT + CTA) vs advanced imaging (including perfusion) in the extended window in terms of clinical outcomes, mortality and safety. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis multicentre cohort study included 1262 stroke patients (last seen well 6-24 h, NIHSS ≥ 6) from the Catalan Stroke Registry (2019-2021). A central core lab re-evaluated images, and blinded investigators assessed 90-day functional outcomes. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) and multivariable methods were applied.
resultsMedian age was 76 years, NIHSS 12 and 48% were women. Simple imaging was used in 44% (n = 550), advanced in 56% (n = 712). Simple imaging had higher rates of no arterial occlusion (49% vs 37%, P = .006) and slightly lower endovascular treatment rates (36% vs 40%, P = .117). Time metrics were similar. In the IPW analysis, (advanced imaging as reference), simple imaging showed numerically worse point estimates across all outcomes, although most differences did not reach statistical significance: a worse mRS shift (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.17 [95% CI, 0.96-1.43]; P = .11), a lower good functional outcome (mRS 0-2; aOR 0.83 [0.66-1.06]; P = .13), a higher mortality (aOR 1.20 [0.91-1.58]; P = .20), more frequent sICH (aOR 1.25 [0.61, 2.57]; P = .55) and a higher risk of any ICH (aOR 1.57 [1.00-2.47]; P = .05). DISCUSSION: In moderate-to-severe stroke (NIHSS ≥ 6) within 6-24 h, simple imaging did not show a statistically significant difference vs advanced imaging for guiding stroke treatment. However, advanced imaging may improve patient selection for reperfusion and reduce haemorrhagic risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT05299034.
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.