Trial reportJournal of neurointerventional surgery2026
Clinical outcomes and independently adjudicated results of M2 aspiration thrombectomy: a subgroup analysis from the Imperative Trial.
Trial report in Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ESCAPE-MeVO (Endovascular Treatment to Improve Outcomes for Medium Vessel Occlusions) and DISTAL (Endovascular Therapy plus Best Medical Treatment vs Best Medical Treatment Alone for Medium Vessel Occlusion Stroke) trials failed to demonstrate the superiority of endovascular thrombectomy over best medical management for medium and small vessel occlusions. Potential limitations of these trials include older patient populations, lower presenting National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores, higher rates of premorbid disability, delayed revascularization times, inclusion of both medium and small vessel occlusions, and widespread use of stent retrievers. Here we present M2 occlusion data from the Imperative Trial, evaluating aspiration thrombectomy with the Zoom System.
methodsThe Imperative Trial is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial with independent core lab and safety board adjudication, evaluating aspiration thrombectomy with the Zoom System (Imperative Care, Campbell, CA, USA) for large vessel, including M2, occlusions. This subanalysis includes patients with primary M2 occlusions. Angiographic outcomes were defined as modified Treatment in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) score ≥2b (good) and ≥2c (excellent). Clinical outcomes were defined as modified Rankin Scale score (mRS) 0-2 (good) and 0-1 (excellent) at 90 days. Safety was assessed by all-cause mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and all hemorrhage.
resultsOf 260 enrolled patients, 25% (65/260) had primary M2 occlusions. Median age was 69 years; median NIHSS was 13. Good and excellent reperfusion were achieved in 88% (57/65) and 66% (43/65), respectively. At 90 days, good and excellent clinical outcomes occurred in 62% (39/63) and 56% (35/63), respectively. Mortality, sICH, and any hemorrhage were 4.6% (3/65), 1.5% (1/65), and 18% (12/65), respectively.
conclusionsThe Zoom System demonstrated excellent safety and efficacy in M2 occlusions. These findings support aspiration thrombectomy for M2 occlusions as a viable treatment in well-selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.