Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41583683›Full record

ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2023

Rescue Stenting for Failed Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Aaron Rodriguez-Calienes, Juan Vivanco-Suarez, Milagros Galecio-Castillo, Joel M Sequeiros, Cynthia B Zevallos, Mudassir Farooqui, Fazeel Siddiqui, Santiago Ortega-Gutierrez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Glycoprotein inhibitors as a first line rescue treatment after unsuccessful recanalization of endovascular thrombectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

8 authors.

Aaron Rodriguez-CalienesDepartment of Neurology University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City IA.
Juan Vivanco-SuarezDepartment of Neurology University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City IA.
Milagros Galecio-CastilloDepartment of Neurology University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City IA.
Joel M SequeirosDepartment of Neurology University of Tennessee Health Science Center Memphis TN.
Cynthia B ZevallosDepartment of Neurology University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City IA.
Mudassir FarooquiDepartment of Neurology University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City IA.
Fazeel SiddiquiDepartment of Neurology Metro Health University of Michigan Wyoming MI.
Santiago Ortega-GutierrezDepartment of Neurology Neurosurgery & Radiology University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Iowa City IA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3408-1297

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: When mechanical thrombectomy (MT) fails to achieve successful reperfusion, rescue stenting (RS) has proven to be a feasible rescue therapy. However, the available evidence remains underpowered to assess clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of RS versus routine medical management in patients with failed MT using an aggregated meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review was performed from inception to July 2022 of all studies using RS after failed MT. Outcomes of interest included a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days, successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2b-3) after RS and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. A random-effects meta-analysis between the RS and medical treatment arms was performed to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) for each outcome. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed with I2 statistics. Results: A total of 12 studies included 1855 participants, 729 in the RS arm and 1126 in the medical treatment arm. The pooled results indicated that RS was associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients with a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 at 90 days (RS: 41% versus 21%; OR,3.27; [95% CI 2.08-5.16]; I2=64%; moderate-certainty evidence) and a decreased risk of mortality at 90 days (RS: 22.5% versus 33.8%; OR, 0.47; [95% CI 0.32-0.69]; I2=45%; low-certainty evidence), compared with medical treatment after failed MT. The pooled rate of successful reperfusion after RS was 87% (95% CI 82-91; I2=57%; low-certainty evidence). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between groups (RS: 8.5% versus 11.7%; OR, 0.85; [95% CI 0.59-1.20]; I2=7%; low-certainty evidence). Conclusion: RS is a promising strategy for maximizing recovery in acute stroke patients after first line MT fails to achieve meaningful reperfusion. However, randomized trials using a standardized approach/technique and MT failure definition are warranted to confirm these results.

Identifiers

PMID41583683
PMCPMC12778681

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.