Trial reportFrontiers in neurology2026
An innovative endovascular approach for acute ischemic stroke attributable to ICAS-LVO: the RESCUE (Retrievable stent-Endovascular tirofiban-paSs-ExtraCtion-microgUide-rEscue angioplasty) technique.
Trial report in Frontiers in neurology, 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
Background: Conventional mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to intracranial atherosclerosis-related large vessel occlusion (ICAS-LVO) is associated with low first-pass reperfusion (FPR), distal embolization, and recurrent thrombosis. We designed a novel stepwise endovascular strategy, the RESCUE (Retrievable stent-Endovascular tirofiban-paSs-ExtraCtion-microgUide-rEscue angioplasty) technique, and compared its safety and efficacy with that of the standard Solumbra technique. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, single-center trial, 85 patients presenting with AIS due to ICAS-LVO were enrolled consecutively. Eligible participants underwent randomization to either the RESCUE group (43 patients) or Solumbra group (42 patients). The primary endpoint was FPR, defined as achieving modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) grade 2c-3. Secondary endpoints comprised: favorable 90-day functional status [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≤2 for anterior strokes or ≤3 for posterior strokes]; procedural duration from groin puncture to first recanalization; number of retrieval attempts; distal embolization; early reocclusion; symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH); and death within 90 days. Results: A significant difference in FPR rates was observed between the two groups, favoring the RESCUE group [86.0% (37/43) vs. 61.9% (26/42); Conclusion: The RESCUE technique is a safe and effective lesion-specific endovascular strategy for ICAS-LVO, providing superior FPR and shorter procedural time compared with the conventional Solumbra technique, without increasing safety concerns. Larger-scale multicenter investigations are needed to confirm these results.
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.