ArticleJournal of neurology2026
Intracranial rescue stenting in the German stroke registry: a propensity score-matched multicenter study.
Article in Journal of neurology, 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntracranial stenting (ICS) is used as a rescue strategy in patients with failed reperfusion after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, real-world data on clinical outcomes and safety remain limited.
methodsThis retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the German Stroke Registry-Endovascular Treatment (GSR-ET) included patients with acute ischemic stroke due to middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusion treated between June 2015 and December 2023. Patients undergoing ICS were compared with a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort with failed reperfusion after EVT (final modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [mTICI] score <2b) who received no further endovascular treatment. Functional, safety, and subgroup outcomes were assessed.
resultsAmong the 14,714 eligible patients, ICS was performed in 352 (2.4%). After matching, 218 patients undergoing ICS were compared with 218 controls with failed reperfusion. ICS was associated with a shift toward better 90-day functional outcomes in unadjusted (cOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.73; p<0.01) and adjusted analyses (acOR 0.41, 95% CI 0.29-0.59; p<0.01). Malignant MCA infarction occurred less frequently in the ICS group (1% vs. 8%; p<0.01), as did 90-day mortality (26% vs. 37%; p=0.02). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between groups (4% vs. 5%; p=0.63).
conclusionsPatients treated with ICS had a shift toward better functional outcomes and lower 90-day mortality than those with failed reperfusion who received no further endovascular treatment. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage did not differ between groups. These findings support further investigation of ICS after failed EVT, although randomized studies are needed to determine its efficacy and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42853400What 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.