ArticleClinical neuroradiology2026
Contact Aspiration Versus Combined Thrombectomy in Basilar Artery Occlusion: Clinical Severity and First-pass Recanalization Are Associated with Outcome.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAcute basilar artery occlusion (BAO) carries high rates of death and disability despite endovascular therapy, and the optimal technique remains unclear. We compared contact aspiration (CA) alone with combined CA plus stent retriever (CA + SR) and identified factors associated with first-pass reperfusion and 3‑month outcome.
methodsIn the prospective multicenter SARA-3 registry, the primary outcomes compared between CA and CA + SR were first-pass recanalization (modified Treatment in Cerebral Infarction [mTICI] 2b-3) and 3‑month functional independence. Secondary outcomes were final recanalization, procedural time, safety, 24‑h NIHSS, and mortality. Factors associated with unfavorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 3-6) were assessed by Firth penalized logistic regression, with first-line technique forced in as a sensitivity analysis.
resultsAmong 68 patients (median admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] 11), 50 (73.5%) received CA and 18 (26.5%) CA + SR. The two techniques showed no statistically significant differences in reperfusion, safety, or 3‑month unfavorable outcome (48% vs. 53%; underpowered), but CA was faster (21 vs. 38 min; P = 0.007). Admission NIHSS (odds ratio [OR] 1.08 per point; P = 0.004) and first-pass mTICI 2b-3 (OR 0.06; P < 0.001) were independently associated with outcome; their combination discriminated well (area under the curve 0.83). Forcing technique into the model did not change these associations (CA + SR adjusted OR 1.19; P = 0.81). No baseline characteristic was independently associated with first-pass reperfusion.
conclusionsCA and CA + SR showed no statistically significant difference in 3‑month outcomes, but CA was faster. First-line technique was not associated with functional outcome; instead, outcome reflected baseline stroke severity and first-pass reperfusion, which defined prognostic groups that may aid risk stratification if externally validated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42909601What 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.