ArticleNeurological research and practice2026
Post-transfer reassessment for endovascular treatment: factors associated with changes in EVT eligibility.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepeat imaging after interhospital transfer for endovascular treatment (EVT) remains controversial because EVT eligibility may change during transfer, whereas routine repeat imaging may delay reperfusion. We investigated factors associated with complete recanalization and extensive infarct progression, and their implications for post-transfer reassessment.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 200 consecutive patients with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion transferred for EVT between 2016 and 2020 who underwent repeat non-contrast CT, CT angiography, and serial neurological assessment. Primary outcomes were complete recanalization on repeat CT angiography and extensive infarct progression (ASPECTS 0-3) precluding EVT. Factors associated with both outcomes were evaluated using multivariable Firth penalized logistic regression.
resultsChanges affecting EVT eligibility occurred in 19 patients (9.5%), including complete recanalization in 10 (5.0%) and extensive infarct progression in 9 (4.5%). Intravenous thrombolysis was associated with complete recanalization (OR 4.87, 95% CI 1.08-46.25; P = 0.039), while greater neurological improvement showed a consistent direction of association (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.18; P = 0.059). Greater neurological deterioration (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.97; P = 0.018) and lower baseline CTA source-image ASPECTS (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.79; P = 0.001) were associated with extensive infarct progression.
conclusionsApproximately one in ten transferred patients experienced clinically meaningful changes affecting EVT eligibility. Neurological reassessment combined with baseline CTA source-image ASPECTS may help identify patients most likely to benefit from repeat imaging and supports a selective rather than routine repeat imaging strategy after interhospital transfer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42855745What 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.