Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41151802›Full record

ArticleStroke and vascular neurology2026

Contact aspiration versus stent retriever thrombectomy for acute basilar artery occlusion (ANGEL-COAST): rationale and design of a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial.

Sun Xuan, Ming Yang, Dapeng Sun, Ligang Song, Feng Gao, Dapeng Mo, Ning Ma, Yuesong Pan, Liping Liu, Xingquan Zhao and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05615038 (A Comparison of Contact Aspiration Versus Stent Retriever for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05615038 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

A Comparison of Contact Aspiration Versus Stent Retriever for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion: A Multicentre, Prospective, Open-label, Blind Endpoint, Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorBeijing Tiantan HospitalRan2022 to 2025Enrolled338ConditionsBasilar Artery Occlusion, Endovascular TreatmentArmsContact aspiration Thrombectomy, Stent retriever thrombectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Sun Xuan *Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8692-9838
Ming Yang *Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7788-3356
Dapeng Sun *Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6321-5381
Ligang SongInterventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Feng GaoInterventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Dapeng MoInterventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ning MaInterventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4909-7048
Yuesong PanInterventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Liping LiuChina National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2943-055X
Xingquan ZhaoChina National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8345-5147
Yilong WangChina National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3267-0039
Yongjun WangChina National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9976-2341
Raul NogueiraUPMC Stroke Institute, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA zhongrongm@163.com nogueirarg@upmc.edu.
Zhongrong MiaoInterventional Neuroradiology, Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China zhongrongm@163.com nogueirarg@upmc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContact aspiration (CA) and stent retriever (SR) thrombectomy are two equally recommended first-line endovascular techniques for treating acute ischaemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion. Whether CA is more effective in achieving complete reperfusion compared with SR in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion (ABAO) remains unclear.

aimThis study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of CA versus SR as the first-line strategy during endovascular treatment in improving the rates of first-pass effect (FPE) for patients with ABAO. METHODS AND

designThe ANGEL-COAST study is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) clinical trial. Patients with acute ischaemic stroke due to ABAO within 24 hours from symptom onset will be recruited. Participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the CA or SR group. If the assigned treatment fails after three attempts, investigators may opt for alternative treatment strategies based on their clinical judgement. STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint is the FPE rate, defined as eTICI (Extended Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction) 2C/3 recanalisation after the first thrombectomy attempt without any rescue strategy. Key secondary endpoints include rates of modified FPE (eTICI ≥2b50), successful recanalisation (eTICI ≥2b50, eTICI ≥2b67, eTICI3) within ≤3 passes with the assigned device on conclusion of the procedure, procedural duration, use of rescue techniques and functional outcomes at 90 days, including modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2 and mRS ordinal shift analysis. Safety outcomes include the rates of symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (sICH) at 36±12 hours, all-cause 90-day mortality and procedure-related serious adverse events. DISCUSSION: This is a head-to-head randomised trial to directly compare CA and SR in ABAO. The findings will help establish the optimal first-line endovascular treatment strategy for ABAO, potentially improving clinical outcomes in this high-risk group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT05615038.

Indexed as

Endovascular ProceduresIschemic StrokeStentsThrombectomyVertebrobasilar InsufficiencyHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionResearch DesignSuctionTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeInterventionIschemic StrokeRandomized Controlled TrialThrombectomy

Identifiers

PMID41151802
PMCPMC13347869

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.