Date | Author | Investigation | N | NIHSS score | *Vessel criteria* | Primary outcome | Study conclusion |
2020 | Toth et al 41 | EVT feasibility | 20 | ≤5 | Anterior and posterior M2, basilar | mRS ≤1 | 95% mTICI ≥2b 95% mRS ≤1 0% sICH, 5% SND |
2016 | Bhogal et al 42 | EVT feasibility | 41 | ≤5 | M1 only | mTICI ≥2b | 75% mRS ≤2 88% mTICI ≥2b 10% sICH |
2018 | Kaschner et al 43 | EVT feasibility | 30 | ≤5 | M1 only | mRS ≤2 | 97% mTICI ≥2b 3% sICH |
2017 | Dargazanli et al 44 | EVT feasibility | 138 | ≤7 | Anterior M2, ICA-T | mTICI ≥2b | mTICI ≥2b predictive of FI 81% mTICI ≥2b |
2016 | Pfaff et al 45 | EVT feasibility | 33 | ≤8 | None | mTICI ≥2b | EVT is safe 78% mTICI ≥2b 6% sICH |
2018 | Bowen et al 46 | EVT feasibility | 72 | ≤8 | None | mRS ≤2 | EVT is safe 93% mTICI ≥2b 0% sICH |
2014 | Urra et al 4 | EVT vs BMM | 78 | ≤5 | Anterior and posterior M2, A1, basilar, P1 | mRS ≤1 | NS |
2018 | Haussen et al 5 | EVT vs BMM | 118 | ≤5 | Anterior and posterior M2, ACA, basilar | NIHSS shift | EVT benefit (p=0.03) |
2018 | Nagel et al 6 | EVT vs BMM | 300 | ≤5 | Anterior and posterior M2, ACA, basilar | mRS ≤2 | EVT benefit (p=0.03) |
2019 | †Goyal et al 3 | EVT vs BMM | 251 | ≤5 | Anterior M2, ICA-T | mRS ≤2 | NS |
2017 | Haussen et al 7 | EVT vs BMM | 32 | ≤5 | Anterior M2, ICA-T | NIHSS shift | EVT benefit (p=0.04) |
2018 | Sarraj et al 8 | EVT vs BMM | 214 | ≤5 | Anterior M4, ACA | mRS ≤1 | NS |
2020 | Saito et al 9 | EVT vs BMM | 272 | ≤5 | Anterior and posterior M3, A2, P2 | mRS ≤2 | NS |
2020 | Wolman et al 10 | EVT vs BMM | 47 | ≤6 | Anterior-none | NIHSS shift | NS |
2017 | Dargazanli et al 11 | EVT vs BMM | 301 | ≤7 | Anterior M2, ICA-T | mRS ≤1 | NS |
2019 | †Shang et al 12 | EVT vs BMM | 177 | ≤8 | Anterior M2, ACA | mRS ≤1 | EVT benefit (p=0.008) |
2019 | Manno et al 47 | EVT vs IVT | 312 | ≤5 | Anterior M2, ICA-T | mRS ≤1 | NS |
2017 | Messer et al 48 | EVT vs IVT | 54 | ≤5 | Anterior M2, ICA-T | mRS ≤1 | NS |
2018 | Kastrup et al 49 | EVT vs IVT | 305 | ≤10 | Anterior M2, ICA-T | mRS ≤2 | NS |
2020 | Heldner et al 50 | EVT vs IVT vs CM | 185 | ≤5 | Anterior M1, ICA-T | SND | EVT or IVT better than conservative |
2018 | Shang et al 51 | Extended window | 93 | ≤8 | Anterior M2, ACA | mRS ≤1 | NS |
2019 | Goldhoorn et al 26 | Low vs high NIHSS score | 71 | ≤5 | Anterior M2, A2 | mRS ≤2 | Outcomes better patients within low NIHSS score |
2019 | Kaesmacher et al 52 | Low vs high NIHSS score | 193 | ≤7 | Anterior and posterior M3, A2, P2 | mRS ≤1 | Safety/efficacy similar |
2019 | Asdaghi et al 21 | Low vs high NIHSS score | 446 | ≤5 | None | Patient characteristics | – |
*For vessel imaging criteria the most distal artery of the parent artery is listed. For example, if M4 is listed the study included MCA sections M1, M2, M3, and M4.
†Indicates study also conducted meta-analysis of literature.
ACA, anterior cerebral artery; BMM, best medical management; CM, conservative management; EVT, endovascular therapy; ICA-T, internal carotid artery-terminus; IVT, intravenous therapy; MCA, middle cerebral artery; mRS, mofified Rankin Scale; mTICI, modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction; N, number of patients; NS, no difference in primary outcome; sICH, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage; SND, symptomatic neurological deficit.