Publication

• Title: Endovascular Treatment of Medium-Vessel-Occlusion Strokes
• Acronym: ORIENTAL-MeVO
• Year: 2026
• Journal published in: The New England Journal of Medicine
• Citation: Hu W, Jing X, Chen Z, Zheng J, Yi T, Zheng T, et al. Endovascular treatment of medium-vessel-occlusion strokes. N Engl J Med. 2026 May 14;394(19):1894-904.

Context & Rationale

• Background

  • Medium-vessel occlusions are common and clinically heterogeneous, spanning selected M2/M3 middle cerebral artery occlusions, anterior cerebral artery occlusions, and posterior cerebral artery occlusions.
  • Large-vessel thrombectomy transformed acute ischaemic stroke care, but the biology and procedural risk–benefit balance are less straightforward in smaller, more distal arteries.
  • Post hoc M2 data from the HERMES collaboration supported benefit in selected M2 occlusions, especially proximal or dominant M2 branches, but this did not settle the question for smaller co-dominant or non-dominant M2, M3, ACA, or PCA occlusions.¹
  • The ORIENTAL-MeVO protocol was designed to test whether a deliberately selected MeVO population with disabling deficits and limited established infarction would benefit from thrombectomy.²
  • Immediately before ORIENTAL-MeVO, dedicated MeVO/DVO randomised trials were neutral or unfavourable: ESCAPE-MeVO showed no functional benefit and more harm; DISTAL showed no reduction in disability or death; DISCOUNT was stopped early for futility and safety concerns.³⁴⁵
• Research Question/Hypothesis

  • In adults with acute ischaemic stroke from a primary medium-vessel occlusion, moderate-to-severe neurological deficit, favourable imaging, and presentation within 24 hours, does endovascular thrombectomy plus medical management improve 90-day functional outcome compared with medical management alone?
  • The trialists hypothesised that a higher-severity, imaging-selected MeVO population would have less spontaneous recovery and a larger treatment-responsive penumbra than the milder populations enrolled in earlier neutral trials.
• Why This Matters

  • A positive trial would reopen the MeVO thrombectomy question after negative trials, but only for a narrower population.
  • A negative or harmful trial would strengthen the case against routine distal thrombectomy and emphasise best medical treatment, including intravenous thrombolysis when eligible.
  • The clinical stakes are high because MeVO thrombectomy is technically feasible, but smaller vessels carry real risks of perforation, dissection, distal embolisation, subarachnoid haemorrhage, and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage.

Design & Methods

• Research Question: Whether endovascular thrombectomy plus medical management improves 90-day functional outcome compared with medical management alone in selected adults with acute ischaemic stroke due to primary MeVO and NIHSS score ≥6 within 24 hours of last-known-well.
• Study Type: Investigator-initiated, phase 3, prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment; conducted at 48 stroke centres in China; 1:1 allocation stratified by centre and occlusion site.
• Population:
  • Setting: Hyperacute stroke care pathways at experienced Chinese centres capable of rapid vascular imaging, thrombolysis, and thrombectomy.
  • Key inclusion criteria: Age ≥18 years; prestroke modified Rankin scale score 0–2; NIHSS score ≥6 at randomisation; time from last-known-well to randomisation <24 hours; primary medium-vessel occlusion on CTA/MRA/DSA.
  • Eligible occlusions: Co-dominant or non-dominant M2 segment with vessel diameter ≤2.0 mm; M3 segment; A1, A2, or A3 segment; or P1, P2, or P3 segment.
  • Imaging selection: <50% ischaemic involvement of the clinically estimated at-risk territory on noncontrast CT or diffusion MRI, or perfusion mismatch with penumbra-to-core mismatch ratio >1.4 and mismatch volume ≥10 ml.
  • Key exclusions: Intracranial haemorrhage; rapidly improving symptoms likely to leave NIHSS <6; multiterritory occlusions; major ischaemic change outside the target territory; contraindication to CT/MR angiography; terminal illness; seizure at onset preventing reliable NIHSS; severe glucose abnormality; major bleeding diathesis; severe renal failure; septic embolus or suspected endocarditis; pregnancy; prisoner status.
  • Baseline severity: In the intention-to-treat population, median age was 71 years; median NIHSS score was 10; 42.8% were women; 36.6% received intravenous thrombolysis.
• Intervention:
  • Endovascular thrombectomy plus standard medical management.
  • Permitted endovascular approaches included stent retrievers, aspiration, combined stent retriever plus aspiration, angioplasty, stents, and intra-arterial thrombolysis at operator discretion.
  • Proceduralists were required to have >5 years’ cerebrovascular interventional experience and >80 previous thrombectomy procedures; participating centres were required to perform >100 thrombectomy procedures annually.
  • Of 280 patients in the thrombectomy group, 262 received EVT; 15 had complete recanalisation on initial DSA and no intervention attempted; 3 crossed over to medical management.
  • Median onset-to-arterial-access time was 5.3 hours; median onset-to-revascularisation time was 6.4 hours; median puncture-to-revascularisation time was 1.0 hour.
  • Final successful reperfusion, defined as eTICI 2b50–3, occurred in 206 of 277 patients (74.4%).
  • General anaesthesia was used in 94 of 277 patients (33.9%).
• Comparison:
  • Medical management alone, including guideline-based antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation when indicated, supportive care, and intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase or tenecteplase when eligible.
  • Intravenous thrombolysis was balanced between groups: 101 of 280 patients (36.1%) in the thrombectomy group vs 105 of 283 patients (37.1%) in the control group.
  • Among patients presenting within 4.5 hours, 167 of 361 (46.3%) received intravenous thrombolysis.
  • Antiplatelet therapy was used in 188 of 280 patients (67.1%) in the thrombectomy group vs 219 of 283 (77.4%) in the control group.
  • Anticoagulation was used in 80 of 280 patients (28.6%) in the thrombectomy group and 81 of 283 (28.6%) in the control group.
  • Nine patients crossed over from control to thrombectomy.
• Blinding: The trial was open-label for patients and treating clinicians, with blinded 90-day functional outcome assessment, blinded clinical-event adjudication, blinded adverse-event adjudication, blinded central imaging laboratory review, and analysis by an independent statistician.
• Statistics:
  • Power calculation: A total of 564 patients was required to detect an absolute 12 percentage-point increase in 90-day functional independence, from 46% in controls to 58% with thrombectomy, equivalent to a common odds ratio of 1.62 for functional improvement across the modified Rankin scale, allowing 5% withdrawal, with 80% power. The published manuscript/protocol did not explicitly state the alpha level.
  • Planned primary analysis: Ordinal shift in the modified Rankin scale score at 90 days, with mRS scores 5 and 6 combined, using ordinal logistic regression after testing the proportional-odds assumption.
  • Prespecified fallback primary outcome: If the proportional-odds assumption was violated, functional independence, defined as mRS 0–2 at 90 days, would become the primary outcome.
  • Actual primary analysis: The Brant test showed violation of the proportional-odds assumption (P=0.02), so the prespecified binary outcome mRS 0–2 at 90 days became the primary outcome.
  • Analysis population: Intention-to-treat excluding one patient who withdrew consent shortly after randomisation.
  • Adjustment variables: Age, prestroke mRS, time from onset to randomisation, baseline NIHSS score, and occlusion site.
  • Missing outcomes: Missing 90-day mRS data in 11 patients were handled using multiple imputation by chained equations with 10 imputed datasets; sensitivity analyses were consistent.
  • Multiplicity: Secondary and subgroup analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity.
• Follow-Up Period: Primary clinical follow-up at 90 days, with a ±14-day window; CTA/MRA patency and haemorrhage assessment at 24–72 hours; NIHSS at 24 hours and at 5–7 days or discharge.

Key Results

This trial was not stopped early. No formal interim analysis was planned; 564 patients were randomised, and 563 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

• The main efficacy signal was clinically meaningful: functional independence increased from 46.6% to 58.6%, and excellent outcome increased from 33.2% to 48.9%.
• Subgroup results were hypothesis-generating only: benefit was not clear in NIHSS <8 (52/70 [74.3%] vs 54/72 [75.0%]; adjusted rate ratio 0.98; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19), M3 occlusion (16/37 [43.2%] vs 38/67 [56.7%]; adjusted rate ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.29), or randomisation ≥8 hours (40/72 [55.6%] vs 30/63 [47.6%]; adjusted rate ratio 1.08; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.47).
• The strongest subgroup signals were in NIHSS ≥8 (112/210 [53.3%] vs 78/211 [37.0%]; adjusted rate ratio 1.41; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.74), M2 occlusion (80/123 [65.0%] vs 42/96 [43.8%]; adjusted rate ratio 1.43; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.82), and earlier treatment windows, but none of these subgroup analyses was powered or multiplicity-adjusted.

Internal Validity

• Randomisation and allocation: Randomisation used a secure web-based system, with stratification by centre and occlusion site, reducing selection bias.
• Concealment after assignment: Allocation was not concealed from patients or treating clinicians after randomisation because a sham thrombectomy was not used.
• Dropout and exclusions: One patient assigned to thrombectomy withdrew shortly after randomisation and was excluded, leaving 280 thrombectomy patients and 283 control patients in the intention-to-treat analysis.
• Missing outcomes: Primary-outcome data were missing for 11 patients: 7 in the thrombectomy group and 4 in the control group; multiple imputation and complete-case sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main result.
• Protocol deviations: Fourteen patients had protocol violations, including 8 with baseline NIHSS <6, 2 with time from onset to randomisation >24 hours, and 4 with multiple vascular-territory occlusions.
• Crossover: Twelve patients crossed over: 3 from thrombectomy to medical management and 9 from control to thrombectomy; per-protocol results remained concordant, with mRS 0–2 in 158/268 (59.0%) vs 124/269 (46.1%), adjusted rate ratio 1.25; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.46.
• Performance and detection bias: The open-label design creates potential performance bias, particularly for monitoring, rehabilitation intensity, antithrombotic decisions, and thresholds for repeat imaging; blinded mRS assessment, blinded imaging review, and blinded event adjudication reduce detection bias.
• Outcome assessment: The primary outcome was patient-centred but partly subjective; mRS assessment was mainly by structured telephone interview, which is pragmatic but susceptible to misclassification despite blinding.
• Protocol adherence: Separation of the procedural variable was substantial: 82.1% patency at 24–72 hours in thrombectomy-assigned patients with follow-up vascular imaging vs 46.2% in controls, adjusted rate ratio 1.76; 95% CI 1.49 to 2.09.
• Baseline characteristics: Groups were broadly comparable for age and NIHSS, but there were notable imbalances: M2 occlusion was more common in the thrombectomy group (43.9% vs 33.9%), M3 occlusion was more common in controls (13.2% vs 23.7%), atrial fibrillation was more common in the thrombectomy group (29.6% vs 21.2%), and large-artery atherosclerosis was more common in controls (47.9% vs 56.5%).
• Baseline imaging: Among patients with CT perfusion data, median core volume was 8.4 ml vs 4.2 ml and median Tmax >6 seconds lesion volume was 53.9 ml vs 37.1 ml, suggesting some baseline imaging asymmetry despite randomisation.
• Heterogeneity: The trial combined M2, M3, ACA, and PCA occlusions, early and late windows, intracranial atherosclerosis and cardioembolism, and several thrombectomy techniques; this heterogeneity is clinically realistic but makes the single average treatment effect difficult to apply mechanistically.
• Timing: Median onset-to-randomisation time was 5.0 hours in both groups; thrombectomy achieved median arterial access at 5.3 hours and revascularisation at 6.4 hours. The subgroup signal was weaker at ≥8 hours, making late-window benefit less certain.
• Dose of intervention: For a procedure, “dose” is best understood as reperfusion quality and procedural intensity; final eTICI 2b50–3 reperfusion in 74.4% is credible for MeVO but lower than contemporary large-vessel occlusion benchmarks.
• Separation from co-interventions: Intravenous thrombolysis was well balanced (36.1% vs 37.1%), whereas antiplatelet therapy was more common in controls (77.4% vs 67.1%); intra-arterial thrombolysis, tirofiban, and device strategy were not standardised in the thrombectomy arm.
• Statistical rigour: The prespecified fallback from ordinal mRS shift to binary functional independence was important and followed the protocol; however, dichotomising mRS loses information, secondary analyses were not multiplicity-adjusted, and the alpha level used for sample-size planning was not explicitly reported.
• Adjudication infrastructure: Independent data and safety monitoring, blinded central imaging review, blinded clinical-event adjudication, blinded adverse-event assessment, and independent statistical analysis strengthen internal validity.

Conclusion on Internal Validity: Internal validity is moderate-to-strong. Randomisation, blinded endpoint assessment, prespecified analysis rules, and robust sensitivity analyses support the primary result, but open-label delivery, baseline imbalances, treatment heterogeneity, a changed primary estimand, and unadjusted subgroup/secondary analyses require cautious interpretation.

External Validity

• Population representativeness: The enrolled population was highly selected: prestroke mRS 0–2, NIHSS ≥6, small established infarct or mismatch, primary MeVO, and no multiterritory occlusion.
• Geography and ethnicity: All patients were enrolled in China, where intracranial atherosclerotic disease is more common than in many Western stroke populations; the observed aetiological mix may not generalise directly to European, North American, or other health systems.
• Stroke severity: Median NIHSS was 10, higher than in ESCAPE-MeVO and DISTAL; the findings should not be extrapolated to mild MeVO strokes, especially NIHSS <6 or NIHSS <8.
• Occlusion anatomy: Dominant M2 occlusions were excluded by design; ORIENTAL-MeVO applies best to co-dominant or non-dominant M2 ≤2.0 mm, M3, ACA, or PCA occlusions with clinically meaningful deficits.
• Thrombolysis context: Overall intravenous thrombolysis use was 36.6%, and only 46.3% of patients presenting within 4.5 hours received it; centres with higher thrombolysis uptake may see a smaller incremental thrombectomy effect.
• Procedural expertise: Participating sites and operators were highly experienced, limiting direct generalisability to low-volume centres, resource-limited systems, or settings without rapid vascular imaging and skilled distal thrombectomy operators.
• Resource requirements: Implementation requires reliable CTA/MRA, selective perfusion or DWI assessment, rapid access to angiography, small-vessel device expertise, and careful haemorrhage surveillance.
• Applicability to routine practice: The result supports selective thrombectomy consideration, not routine thrombectomy for all MeVO/DVO patients.

Conclusion on External Validity: External validity is moderate and intentionally narrow. The findings are most applicable to high-volume stroke centres treating carefully selected, functionally independent adults with moderate-to-severe MeVO stroke, limited infarct burden, and early-to-intermediate treatment times.

Strengths & Limitations

• Strengths:
  • Large, dedicated randomised trial in a clinically important and previously unresolved MeVO population.
  • Multicentre design across 48 centres, supporting procedural and organisational breadth within China.
  • Blinded outcome assessment, blinded imaging core laboratory, independent event adjudication, independent adverse-event committee, and independent statistician.
  • Prespecified statistical response to proportional-odds violation, reducing post hoc analytic flexibility.
  • Substantial biological separation in vessel patency: 82.1% vs 46.2% among those with follow-up CTA/MRA.
  • High procedural credentialing requirements, improving confidence that the intervention was delivered by experienced teams.
• Limitations:
  • Open-label treatment assignment without sham control.
  • Primary outcome changed from ordinal mRS shift to dichotomised mRS 0–2 because the proportional-odds assumption failed, although this was prespecified.
  • Secondary and subgroup analyses were not multiplicity-adjusted.
  • All enrolment occurred in China, limiting ethnic, vascular-aetiology, and health-system generalisability.
  • Intravenous thrombolysis use was lower than in several comparator trials and may have increased the apparent incremental value of thrombectomy.
  • Procedural approach was heterogeneous and included operator-discretion adjuncts such as intra-arterial thrombolysis, angioplasty, and tirofiban.
  • Follow-up CTA/MRA was missing in 202 patients, limiting certainty around imaging endpoints.
  • Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, radiological intracranial haemorrhage, procedural complications, and pneumonia were more frequent or numerically higher in the thrombectomy arm.
  • The trial does not establish benefit for NIHSS <8, M3 occlusion, or ≥8-hour randomisation subgroups.

Interpretation & Why It Matters

• Clinical practice

  ORIENTAL-MeVO supports considering thrombectomy for selected MeVO patients with moderate-to-severe deficits, limited infarct burden, and experienced operators, while preserving a cautious stance for mild, very distal, late, or high-haemorrhage-risk presentations.
• Mechanistic interpretation

  The trial is concordant with the patent-artery hypothesis: thrombectomy produced a large patency difference and improved mRS 0–2, but the safety penalty shows that small-vessel reperfusion is not benign.
• Reconciliation with prior trials

  The result does not overturn ESCAPE-MeVO and DISTAL for all-comer MeVO. It narrows the target population toward higher NIHSS, younger age, earlier treatment, lower thrombolysis exposure, and favourable imaging.
• Systems of care

  Implementation should depend on rapid CTA/MRA confirmation, careful infarct-burden assessment, high procedural expertise, and explicit risk discussion about symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage and procedural complications.
• Trial design

  Future MeVO trials should stratify or enrich by stroke severity, occlusion segment, infarct-burden profile, thrombolysis eligibility, and time from onset, rather than treating MeVO as one anatomical category.

Controversies & Other Evidence

• Conflict with prior randomised evidence: ESCAPE-MeVO and DISTAL were neutral despite technical reperfusion, and DISCOUNT was stopped early for futility and safety. ORIENTAL-MeVO therefore should be interpreted as evidence for a selected subgroup rather than a broad reversal of the MeVO evidence base.³⁴⁵
• Editorial interpretation: Ospel and Hill argued that most MeVO patients will not benefit from thrombectomy and that ORIENTAL-MeVO narrows, rather than widens indiscriminately, the target population: younger patients, higher stroke severity, early presentation, favourable imaging, and less concurrent or sequential thrombolysis exposure.⁶
• Different control-group prognosis: The control group in ORIENTAL-MeVO had functional independence in 46.6%, compared with higher control-group functional independence rates in ESCAPE-MeVO and DISTAL as summarised in the accompanying editorial. This supports the interpretation that trial eligibility selected patients with less spontaneous recovery and more room for benefit.⁶
• Lower intravenous thrombolysis use: ORIENTAL-MeVO used intravenous thrombolysis in 36.6% overall, whereas ESCAPE-MeVO and DISTAL had substantially higher thrombolysis use. Because distal occlusions recanalise more often with lysis than proximal LVO, lower thrombolysis exposure may have increased the incremental benefit of thrombectomy.⁶
• Endpoint controversy: The planned ordinal mRS shift analysis could not be used because proportional odds was violated. The fallback to mRS 0–2 was prespecified and statistically defensible, but dichotomisation may overemphasise threshold crossing and obscure distributional harms or benefits across other mRS levels.
• Subgroup fragility: The clinically attractive conclusion that benefit concentrates in NIHSS ≥8, M2 occlusion, and earlier treatment is plausible, but subgroup confidence intervals were not multiplicity-adjusted and the trial was not powered for definitive subgroup claims.
• Protocol evolution: The protocol tightened the M2 vessel-diameter threshold from ≤2.5 mm to ≤2.0 mm, simplified disabling deficit eligibility to NIHSS ≥6, expanded the time window to <24 hours, and broadened late-window imaging selection. These changes improved operational clarity but also shaped the final population in ways that complicate comparison with earlier MeVO trials.²
• Generalisability to Western practice: The high proportion of large-artery atherosclerosis and the China-only enrolment mean that the result may not directly apply to populations with more cardioembolism, different thrombolysis uptake, different prehospital workflows, or different distal thrombectomy expertise.
• Recent expert review: A contemporary review of MeVO management emphasised that the path forward is not routine distal thrombectomy, but improved patient selection using deficit severity, tissue viability, occlusion anatomy, and procedural feasibility.⁷
• Guideline context: The 2026 AHA/ASA acute ischaemic stroke guideline was published before ORIENTAL-MeVO and therefore could not incorporate this positive trial; formal guideline updates will need to integrate ORIENTAL-MeVO alongside the neutral ESCAPE-MeVO and DISTAL evidence.⁸
• Longer-term DISTAL evidence: DISTAL 12-month follow-up was published in 2026 and did not rescue the neutral short-term interpretation of that trial, reinforcing that benefit is not general across all medium/distal vessel occlusions.⁹
• Routine-practice mismatch: A 2026 Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology analysis argued that trial populations may differ meaningfully from real-world patients selected for MeVO/DVO thrombectomy, supporting an individualised clinical–imaging approach rather than automatic inclusion or exclusion.¹⁰
• Meta-analytic context: A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted before ORIENTAL-MeVO, found no overall functional or mortality advantage for EVT plus medical therapy over medical therapy alone in MeVO/DVO, while haemorrhagic complications were increased; ORIENTAL-MeVO adds a positive selected-population signal to that previously neutral synthesis.¹¹

Summary

• ORIENTAL-MeVO randomised 563 Chinese adults with acute ischaemic stroke due to selected primary MeVO, prestroke mRS 0–2, NIHSS ≥6, favourable imaging, and treatment within 24 hours.
• Thrombectomy plus medical management improved 90-day functional independence: 58.6% vs 46.6%; adjusted rate ratio 1.24; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.44; P=0.004.
• Excellent outcome also favoured thrombectomy: 48.9% vs 33.2%; adjusted rate ratio 1.47; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.78.
• Safety was not neutral: symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage was 4.7% vs 2.2%, any intracranial haemorrhage was 11.4% vs 6.0%, and procedure-related complications occurred only in the thrombectomy arm.
• The trial supports selective MeVO thrombectomy in high-expertise centres, especially for more severe and earlier-presenting patients, but does not justify routine thrombectomy for all medium/distal occlusions.

Overall Takeaway

ORIENTAL-MeVO is an important positive randomised trial in a field that had just been unsettled by neutral or harmful MeVO thrombectomy trials. Its central message is not “treat all MeVO”, but “treat the right MeVO”: moderate-to-severe deficits, favourable tissue profile, early enough presentation, experienced operators, and explicit attention to haemorrhage and procedural risk.

Bibliography

• 1.Menon BK, Hill MD, Davalos A, Roos Y, Campbell BCV, Dippel DWJ, et al. Efficacy of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with M2 segment middle cerebral artery occlusions: meta-analysis of data from the HERMES Collaboration. J Neurointerv Surg. 2019;11(11):1065-9.
• 2.Jing X, Nogueira RG, Nguyen TN, Tao C, Zhu Y, Li R, et al. Endovascular treatment in acute intracranial distal medium vessel occlusion stroke: study protocol and rationale. Int J Stroke. 2025;20(6):763-8.
• 3.Goyal M, Ospel JM, Ganesh A, Dowlatshahi D, Volders D, Möhlenbruch MA, et al. Endovascular treatment of stroke due to medium-vessel occlusion. N Engl J Med. 2025;392(14):1385-95.
• 4.Psychogios M, Brehm A, Ribo M, Rizzo F, Strbian D, Räty S, et al. Endovascular treatment for stroke due to occlusion of medium or distal vessels. N Engl J Med. 2025;392(14):1374-84.
• 5.Clarençon F, Durand-Zaleski I, Premat K, Baptiste A, Chabert E, Ferrier A, et al. Evaluation of mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke related to a distal arterial occlusion: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Stroke. 2024;19(3):367-72.
• 6.Ospel JM, Hill MD. Endovascular therapy for medium-vessel occlusion stroke — narrowing the target population. N Engl J Med. 2026;394(19):1955-7.
• 7.Diprose WK, Pensato U, Almekhlafi MA, Psychogios MN, Fischer U, Clarençon F, et al. Acute management of medium vessel occlusion stroke: new evidence and a path forward. Stroke. 2026;57(3):814-28.
• 8.Prabhakaran S, Ruff I, Bernstein RA, Gonzalez NR, Sheth KN, McCullough LD, et al. 2026 guideline for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. Published online January 26, 2026.
• 9.Fischer U, Brehm A, Ribo M, Rizzo F, Strbian D, Räty S, et al; DISTAL Investigators. Endovascular treatment for medium or distal vessel occlusion stroke (DISTAL): 12-month outcomes of a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. Published online May 6, 2026.
• 10.Murillo-Olaizola A, Rodrigo-Gisbert M, Requena M, Brito A, Ribo M, et al. Endovascular treatment for medium and distal vessel occlusion stroke: are we missing the point? Stroke Vasc Interv Neurol. 2026;6:e002137.
• 11.Loiola J de L, Monteiro G de A, Leite M, Araújo B, Ueda G, Mutarelli A, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke due to medium or distal vessel occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2025;257:109101.