# Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion: A Fragility Index Meta-Analysis

Lina Palaiodimou, Andreas Eleftheriou, Aristeidis H Katsanos, Apostolos Safouris, Georgios Magoufis, Stavros Spiliopoulos, Georgios Velonakis, Sofia Vassilopoulou, Diana Aguiar de Sousa, Guillaume Turc, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Lina Palaiodimou, Andreas Eleftheriou, Aristeidis H Katsanos, Apostolos Safouris, Georgios Magoufis, et al.. Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion: A Fragility Index Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2023, 12 (7), pp.2617. 10.3390/jcm12072617. inserm-04118402

HAL Id: inserm-04118402

https://inserm.hal.science/inserm-04118402

Submitted on 6 Jun 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Systematic Review

# Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion: A Fragility Index Meta-Analysis

Lina Palaiodimou <fnref n="1" />,†, Andreas Eleftheriou <fnref n="1" />,†, Aristeidis H. Katsanos <fnref n="2" />,†, Apostolos Safouris <fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="5" />,†, Georgios Magoufis <fnref n="3" />, Stavros Spiliopoulos <fnref n="6" />,†, Georgios Velonakis <fnref n="7" />,†, Sofia Vassilopoulou <fnref n="8" />, Diana Aguiar de Sousa <fnref n="9" />,<fnref n="10" />, Guillaume Turc <fnref n="11" />,<fnref n="12" />,<fnref n="13" />,<fnref n="14" />, Daniel Strbian <fnref n="15" /> and Georgios Tsivgoulis <fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="16" />,*

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

check for
updates

**Citation:** Palaiodimou, L.; Eleftheriou, A.; Katsanos, A.H.; Safouris, A.; Magoufis, G.; Spiliopoulos, S.; Velonakis, G.; Vassilopoulou, S.; de Sousa, D.A.; Turc, G.; et al. Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion: A Fragility Index Meta-Analysis. *J. Clin. Med.* **2023**, *12*, 2617. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12072617

Academic Editor: Giulio Disanto

Received: 3 March 2023

Revised: 22 March 2023

Accepted: 28 March 2023

Published: 30 March 2023

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

**Abstract:** Introduction: High-quality evidence regarding the use of endovascular treatment (EVT) in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO) has been provided by recently completed randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including all available RCTs that investigated efficacy and safety of EVT in addition to best medical treatment (BMT) versus BMT alone for BAO. The random-effects model was used, while the fragility index (FI) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes of interest. Results: Four RCTs were included comprising a total of 988 patients with acute BAO (mean age: 65.6 years, 70% men, median NIHSS: 24, 39% pretreatment with intravenous thrombolysis). EVT was related to higher likelihood of good functional outcome (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.16–2.05; I<fnref n="2" /> = 60%), functional independence (RR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.08–3.08; I<fnref n="2" /> = 79%) and reduced disability at 3 months (adjusted common OR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.26–3.05; I<fnref n="2" /> = 59%) compared to BMT alone. Despite that EVT was associated with a higher risk for symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR: 7.78; 95% CI: 2.36–25.61; I<fnref n="2" /> = 0%) and any intracranial hemorrhage (RR: 2.85; 95% CI: 1.50–5.44; I<fnref n="2" /> = 16%), mortality at 3 months was lower among patients that received EVT plus BMT versus BMT alone (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65–0.89; I<fnref n="2" /> = 0%). However, sufficient robustness was not evident in any of the reported associations (FI < 10) including the overall effect regarding the primary outcome. The former associations were predominantly driven by RCTs with recruitment limited in China. Conclusions: EVT combined with BMT is associated with a higher likelihood of achieving good functional outcomes and a lower risk of death at 3 months compared to BMT alone, despite the higher risk of sICH. An individual-patient data meta-analysis is warranted to uncover and adjust for potential sources of heterogeneity and to provide further insight.

<footnote n="1">¹ Second Department of Neurology, “Attikon” University Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Division of Neurology, McMaster University and Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON L8L2X2, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Stroke Unit, Metropolitan Hospital, 18547 Piraeus, Greece</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Aktios Rehabilitation Center, 15341 Athens, Greece</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Department of Neurointerventions, National Institute of Mental Health, Neurology and Neurosurgery, Section of Neurointervention, Department of Neurosurgery, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Interventional Radiology Department, “Attikon” University Hospital, 12462 Athens, Greece</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Research Unit of Radiology, 2nd Department of Radiology, Egition Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ First Department of Neurology, Egition Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Stroke Center, Lisbon Central University Hospital, 1649-024 Lisbon, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Institute of Anatomy and CEEM, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Department of Neurology, GHU Paris Psychiatrie et Neurosciences, 75014 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Université Paris Cité, 75006 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ INSERM U1266, 75014 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ FHU NeuroVasc, 75010 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Department of Neurology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, 00029 Helsinki, Finland</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Department of Neurology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 38163, USA</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: tsivgoulisgiorg@yahoo.gr; Tel.: +30-6937178635; Fax: +30-2105832471</footnote>
**Keywords:** acute ischemic stroke; acute basilar artery occlusion; endovascular treatment; mechanical thrombectomy; basilar stroke; posterior circulation; meta-analysis; randomized controlled clinical trials

# 1. Background

Endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) attributed to large vessel occlusion (LVO) of the anterior circulation has been established as a highly efficient and safe treatment option [1]. It is considered as the standard of care for those patients, presenting a number needed to treat that ranges from 3 to 10 for achieving a good or excellent functional outcome at 3 months [2]. Current guidelines, both by the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA), recommend offering EVT to AIS patients with LVO in the anterior circulation, by using either mechanical thrombectomy or thrombus aspiration or a combination of those [3,4]. EVT may also be considered in anterior circulation LVO patients presenting in the prolonged time window (beyond 6 h from symptom onset), if they fulfill certain neuroimaging criteria in the form of either perfusion mismatch or clinical/imaging mismatch based on two landmark trials [5,6]. However, specific guidance regarding EVT in AIS patients with LVO of the posterior circulation and, more specifically, those with acute basilar artery occlusion (BAO), is limited to expert opinions [3]. Yet, acute BAO has been associated with a higher likelihood of dependency and mortality at 3 months compared to AIS patients with LVO in the anterior circulation [7,8].

Observational data suggest that EVT for acute BAO may be efficient and safe [9]. However, the randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) until 2022 have been inconclusive and do not support these observational findings [9]. Both “Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study” (BASICS) [10] and “Acute basilar artery occlusion: Endovascular Interventions versus Standard Medical Treatment” (BEST) [11] trials showed that EVT was not associated with better clinical outcomes, while there was a higher risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) compared to patients that received best medical treatment (BMT) alone. During 2022, the results of two other RCTs were made available: the “Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion” (ATTENTION) [12] and the “Basilar Artery Occlusion Chinese Endovascular Trial” (BAOCHE) [13] trials were able to detect a significantly higher rate of functional outcome at 3 months among patients that received EVT plus BMT versus those who were treated by BMT alone.

Given those inconsistent results of the RCTs published thus far, we performed a systematic review and study-level fragility index meta-analysis, with the aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EVT in patients with acute BAO.

# 2. Methods

## 2.1. Standard Protocol Approvals, Registrations, and Patient Consents

The pre-specified protocol of the present systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42022373387) and is reported according to the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [14]. No ethical board approval or written informed consent by the patients were required due to the study design (systematic review and meta-analysis).

## 2.2. Data Sources, Searches and Study Selection

Following the PICO criteria, a systematic literature search was conducted to identify available RCTs evaluating adult patients with acute BAO within the last 24 h (P: population) treated with EVT together with BMT (I: intervention) versus BMT alone (C: comparator). Functional status at 3 months (O: outcome) should have been reported by the studies in order to be considered amenable for inclusion. EVT was defined as mechanical thrombec-
tomy or endovascular aspiration or intra-arterial thrombolysis or a combination of those. BMT could also include intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) when administered to eligible patients. Two reviewers (LP and AE) independently searched MEDLINE and Scopus using the following terms: "acute basilar occlusion" and "endovascular treatment"; the complete search algorithms can be found in Methods S1 (Supplementary Materials). No language restrictions were applied. Final search was conducted on 29 November 2022. Reference lists of published articles were additionally searched manually to ensure the comprehensiveness of the literature search.

Non-controlled studies and any kind of observational study (i.e., cohort studies, case series or case reports), as well as editorials, commentaries and narrative reviews were discarded. All eligible studies were assessed by the two reviewers (L.P. and A.E.), and any disagreements were discussed and resolved by the corresponding author (G.T.).

## 2.3. *Quality Control, Bias Assessment and Data Extraction*

Quality control and bias assessment of eligible studies were performed independently by the two reviewers (L.P. and A.E.), employing the Cochrane Collaboration tool (RoB 2) for RCTs [15]. In case of conflicting opinions, these were settled by consensus after consulting with the corresponding author (G.T.).

Data were predominantly extracted by scrutinizing the peer-reviewed publications of the included RCTs along with their supplementary materials. In case of missing information, data were also sought in the presentations of the respective RCTs during international conferences. Data of interest (i.e., study name, period of enrolment, country, inclusion criteria, sample size and characteristics of included patients, outcomes) were extracted in structured reports.

## 2.4. *Outcomes*

The primary outcome of interest was the likelihood of achieving a good functional outcome at 3 months, as defined by a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0 to 3, among patients treated with EVT and BMT versus BMT alone.

Secondary outcomes of interest comprised the following: (i) functional independence at 3 months as defined by a mRS of 0 to 2; (ii) reduced disability as assessed by ≥1-point reduction across all mRS grades at 3 months (shift analysis); (iii) sICH; (iv) any ICH; and (v) all-cause mortality at 3 months.

Both primary and secondary outcomes of interest were assessed in subgroup analyses stratified by recruiting centers (centers limited to China versus international participation). Furthermore, a second prespecified subgroup analysis stratifying for IVT pretreatment as part of BMT was also conducted with regard to the primary outcome.

## 2.5. *Statistical Analysis*

For each dichotomous outcome of interest, the corresponding risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated using the random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird) [16], comparing outcome events among patients treated with EVT versus controls. The subgroup differences between different distribution of recruiting centers were assessed by the Q test for subgroups [17]. For the shift mRS analysis, the adjusted common odds ratio (OR) was calculated using generic inverse variance meta-analysis. Pooled proportion of sICH was also calculated, after the implementation of the variance-stabilizing double arcsine transformation. The I² and Cochran Q statistics were used for the assessment of heterogeneity; I² values > 50% and values > 75% were considered to indicate substantial and considerable heterogeneity, respectively, while the significance level for the Q statistic was set at 0.1. Funnel plot inspection and the Egger's linear regression test [18] were employed for the evaluation of publication bias, when more than four studies were included in the analysis of each outcome. Furthermore, the fragility index (FI) was calculated for the dichotomous outcomes of interest [19], with a FI ≤ 4 indicating a "highly fragile/non-robust" result; a 4 < FI ≤ 12 pointing to a somewhat "fragile/robust" result;
a 12 < FI ≤ 34 corresponding to a “robust” result; and, finally, a FI > 34 suggesting a “highly robust” result [20]. All statistical analyses were performed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) Software Package (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) [21], and the OpenMetaAnalyst [22].

## 3. Results

### 3.1. *Literature Search and Included Studies*

Through a systematic database search (Figure 1, Table S1), four studies [10–13] were identified as eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis, with a total of 988 patients with acute BAO (mean age: 65.6 years; 70% men; median National Institutes Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS): 24; 39% IVT pretreatment; Figures S1–S4).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Flow chart of the systematic review.</figcaption></figure>

The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. Patient recruitment was limited to centers located in China in three of the included RCTs [11–13], while only one RCT had international recruitment [10]. Furthermore, two RCTs included patients that presented in the prolonged time window post symptom onset [12,13]. However, those two studies had more restrictive inclusion criteria, since patients were selected for participation according to a prespecified combination of age, pre-stroke mRS, baseline NIHSS, and Posterior Circulation Acute Stroke Prognosis Early CT Score (PC-ASPECTS) score [12,13]. This fact explains the differences noted in the baseline characteristics among patients of the different studies. Finally, patients and investigators were not blinded in any of the included studies. Yet, the evaluation of outcomes was performed by blinded assessors.
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Study</th><th rowspan="2">Recruiting Centers</th><th rowspan="2">Period of Enrollment</th><th rowspan="2">Target Population</th><th colspan="2">EVT and BMT</th><th colspan="2">BMT Alone</th></tr><tr><th>N</th><th>Patients Characteristics</th><th>N</th><th>Patients Characteristics</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ATTENTION [12]</td><td>China</td><td>February 2021–January 2022</td><td>BAO within 12 h, with NIHSS ≥ 10 and pre-stroke mRS and PC-ASPECTS selection stratified by age</td><td>226</td><td>Mean age: 66.0 ± 11.1 years;<br>66% males;<br>median NIHSS: 24 (15–35);<br>median PC-ASPECTS: 9 (8–10);<br>median time from stroke onset to randomization: 5.1 (3.6–7.2) h;<br>31% with IVT pretreatment</td><td>114</td><td>Mean age: 67.3 ± 10.2 years;<br>72% males;<br>median NIHSS: 24 (14–35);<br>median PC-ASPECTS: 10 (8–10);<br>median time from stroke onset to randomization: 4.9 (3.5–7.0) h;<br>34% with IVT pretreatment</td></tr><tr><td>BAOCHE [13]</td><td>China</td><td>August 2016–June 2021</td><td>BAO between 6 to 24 h, age ≤ 80, with NIHSS ≥ 10 (later expanded to ≥6), pre-stroke mRS ≤ 1, PC-ASPECTS ≥ 6</td><td>110</td><td>Mean age: 64.2 ± 9.6 years;<br>73% males;<br>median NIHSS: 20 (15–29);<br>median PC-ASPECTS: 8 (7–10);<br>median time from stroke onset to randomization: 11.1 (8.5–14.4) h;<br>14% with IVT pretreatment</td><td>107</td><td>Mean age: 63.7 ± 9.8 years;<br>74% males;<br>median NIHSS: 19 (12–30);<br>median PC = ASPECTS: 8 (7–10);<br>median time from stroke onset to randomization: 11.0 (8.2–14.0) h;<br>21% with IVT pretreatment</td></tr><tr><td>BASICS [10]</td><td>International</td><td>October 2011–December 2019</td><td>BAO within 6 h, age ≤ 85 (later expanded to >85), with NIHSS ≥ 10 (later expanded to <10), pre-stroke mRS ≤ 2</td><td>154</td><td>Mean age: 66.8 ± 13.1 years;<br>65% males;<br>median NIHSS: 21 (NR);<br>median PC-ASPECTS: 10 (10–10);<br>median time from stroke onset to randomization: 4.4 (3.3–6.2) h *;<br>79% with IVT pretreatment</td><td>146</td><td>Mean age: 67.2 ± 11.9 years;<br>66% males;<br>median NIHSS: 22 (NR);<br>median PC-ASPECTS: 10 (10–10);<br>median time from stroke onset to randomization: NR;<br>80% with IVT pretreatment</td></tr><tr><td>BEST [11]</td><td>China</td><td>April 2015–September 2017</td><td>BAO, within 8 h, pre-stroke mRS ≤ 2</td><td>66</td><td>Mean age: 62.0 ± 17.8 years;<br>73% males;<br>median NIHSS: 32 (18–38);<br>median PC-ASPECTS: 8 (7–9);<br>median time from stroke onset to randomization: 4.1 (2.3–6) h;<br>27% with IVT pretreatment</td><td>65</td><td>Mean age: 65.7 ± 12.6 years;<br>80% males;<br>median NIHSS: 26 (13–37);<br>median PC-ASPECTS: 8 (7–9);<br>median time from stroke onset to randomization: 4.6 (3.2–6.5) h;<br>32% with IVT pretreatment</td></tr></tbody></table>

EVT: endovascular treatment; BMT: best medical treatment; N: number; SD: standard deviation; mRS: modified Rankin scale; NIHSS: National Institutes Health Stroke Scale; IQR: interquartile range; PC-ASPECTS: posterior circulation Acute Stroke Prognosis Early CT Score; IVT: intravenous thrombolysis; BAO: basilar artery occlusion; NR: not reported. * In BASICS [10], time from stroke onset to randomization was not reported. In the table, time from stroke onset to endovascular treatment is presented to allow for an indirect comparison with other studies.
## 3.2. Quality Control of Included Studies

The quality assessment of the included studies is presented in Figures S5 and S6. All studies presented major concerns due to the fact that randomized participants and treating physicians were aware of the intervention and several deviations from intended interventions were noted. Moreover, one study [12] suffered from minor randomization bias since the use of a minimization process to balance the two treatment groups with appropriate stratification was not clearly reported, and another study [13] presented minor concerns due to missing outcome data. Overall, the included RCTs were considered of medium quality, mostly driven by the existence of performance bias.

## 3.3. Quantitative Analyses

An overview of analyses for all primary and secondary outcomes is summarized in Table 2.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Overview of analyses for primary and secondary outcomes.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variable</th><th colspan="3">Effect</th><th rowspan="2">Fragility Index</th><th rowspan="2">Interpretation</th></tr><tr><th>N of Studies</th><th>Risk Ratio (95% CI)</th><th>I<sup>2</sup>, p for Cochran Q</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Primary Outcome</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Good Functional Outcome (mRS 0–3)</td><td>4</td><td>1.54 (1.16–2.05)</td><td>60%; 0.06</td><td>9</td><td>Fragile/Somewhat Robust</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Secondary Efficacy Outcomes</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Functional Independence (mRS 0–2)</td><td>4</td><td>1.83 (1.08–3.08)</td><td>79%; 0.02</td><td>4</td><td>Highly Fragile/Not Robust</td></tr><tr><td>Reduced Disability</td><td>4</td><td>1.96 (1.26–3.05) *</td><td>59%; 0.06</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6"><strong>Secondary Safety Outcomes</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Symptomatic Intracranial Hemorrhage</td><td>4</td><td>7.78 (2.36–25.61)</td><td>0%; 0.97</td><td>5</td><td>Fragile/Somewhat Robust</td></tr><tr><td>Any Intracranial Hemorrhage</td><td>4</td><td>2.85 (1.50–5.44)</td><td>16%; 0.31</td><td>5</td><td>Fragile/Somewhat Robust</td></tr><tr><td>All-cause mortality</td><td>4</td><td>0.76 (0.65–0.89)</td><td>0%; 0.42</td><td>9</td><td>Fragile/Somewhat Robust</td></tr></tbody></table>

mRS: modified Rankin Scale; CI: confidence interval; NA: not applicable. * Adjusted common OR.

## 3.4. Primary Outcome

Patients receiving EVT plus BMT had an increased likelihood of achieving good functional outcomes at 3 months compared to BMT alone (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.16–2.05; 4 studies; I² = 60%; *p* for Cochran Q = 0.06; Figure 2). However, FI was calculated at 9, indicating that the result was “fragile/somewhat robust”. In order to assess for potential reasons of the heterogeneity noted in this analysis, a subgroup analysis was conducted after stratification for the contributing centers (limited in China versus international recruitment). In this analysis, significant subgroup differences emerged (*p* for subgroup differences = 0.03), while the heterogeneity was also mitigated within the subgroups (Figure S7). When subgroup analysis was performed after stratification for IVT administration, no significant subgroup differences were noted either by RR (Figure S8) or by OR generic calculation (Figure S9), according to the effect size that was reported by the included studies. Notably, in the subgroup of patients pretreated with IVT, the effect size of EVT compared to BMT with
regard to the primary outcome was attenuated (RR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.05–1.77; I² = 0%; *p* for Cochran Q = 0.50; data available from two RCTs).

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with good functional outcomes (mRS 0–3) at 3 months among acute basilar artery occlusion patients.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.5. Secondary Outcomes

EVT was also associated with higher likelihood of achieving functional independence at 3 months compared to BMT alone (RR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.08–3.08; four studies; I² = 79%; *p* for Cochran Q = 0.002; Figure S10). The FI was calculated at 4, which was indicative of a “highly fragile/non-robust” result. Furthermore, subgroup differences after stratification for recruiting centers were also evaluated and found to be marginally non-significant (*p* for subgroup differences = 0.07; Figure S11).

The adjusted common OR for reduced disability with EVT was 1.96 (95% CI: 1.26–3.05; four studies; I² = 59%; *p* for Cochran Q = 0.06; Figure S12). No subgroup differences emerged among studies with recruiting centers limited to China or with international participation (*p* for subgroup differences = 0.20; Figure S13).

sICH was more common in the patients receiving EVT plus BMT versus BMT alone (RR: 7.78; 95% CI: 2.36–25.61; four studies; I² = 0%; *p* for Cochran Q = 0.97; Figure 3). However, the result was considered “fragile/somewhat robust”, presenting a FI of 5. This may be attributed to the low frequency of sICH events in both arms. Notably, the pooled proportion of sICH in the interventional arm was calculated at 5.4% (95% CI: 3.6–7.4%; four studies; I² = 0%; *p* for Cochran Q = 0.859; Figure S14). Stratified by recruiting centers, there was no difference between studies limited to China versus those with international recruitment with regard to sICH (*p* for subgroup differences = 0.86; Figure S15).

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) among acute basilar artery occlusion patients.</figcaption></figure>

Any ICH was recorded more frequently in the interventional versus the control arm (RR: 2.85; 95% CI: 1.50–5.44; four studies; I² = 16%; *p* for Cochran Q = 0.31; Figure S16). Yet, this was another “fragile/somewhat” robust result, with a FI of 5. No subgroup differences
were noted among studies with limited versus international recruitment (p for subgroup differences = 0.13; Figure S17).

Finally, all-cause mortality at 3 months was significantly lower among the patients that were treated with EVT plus BMT versus BMT alone (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.65–0.89; four studies; I² = 0%; p for Cochran Q = 0.42; Figure 4). FI was calculated at 9, indicating a “fragile/somewhat robust” result. There were no subgroup differences among studies conducted in China versus those with international participation (p for subgroup differences = 0.19; Figure S18).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with mortality at 3 months among acute basilar artery occlusion patients.</figcaption></figure>

Evaluation for publication bias was not performed, since only four studies were included in the analysis.

## 4. Discussion

The present meta-analysis has shown that EVT plus BMT in the treatment of patients with acute BAO is associated with a higher likelihood of achieving a good functional outcome at 3 months compared to BMT alone, which rarely included IVT. Likewise, functional independence and any functional improvement at 3 months were also more common in the EVT plus BMT group versus the BMT alone group. Even though sICH and any ICH were observed more frequently in the interventional arm, the all-cause mortality at 3 months was significantly lower in the patients receiving EVT on top of BMT rather than BMT alone.

Despite the fact that statistical significance was achieved in the analysis for every outcome, the reported associations were not robust. This was evident by the relevantly low FI as assessed for every outcome and the heterogeneity noted, especially for the primary outcome of interest. To address the heterogeneity, a subgroup analysis stratified for the distribution of recruiting centers was conducted. There were statistically significant subgroup differences between studies that were conducted in China compared to international recruitment with regard to the primary outcome of good functional outcome at 3 months. It appears that the overall result of the meta-analysis is driven by the RCTs recruiting patients from China, and this fact may raise some concerns regarding the generalizability of the findings to international cohorts.

Given the important limitation that IVT is not directly reimbursed in China and the possibility that a subset of patients could not receive IVT despite indications [23], we hypothesized that the association between EVT and good functional outcome at 3 months would be amplified among patients that did not receive IVT as part of BMT. Characteristically, when stratification for contributing sites was performed, significant differences were disclosed with regard to IVT pretreatment: among the RCTs conducted in China, the proportion of IVT pretreatment was lower (26%; 95% CI: 17–36%) compared to the RCT with international participation (79%; 95% CI: 74–83%; p for subgroup differences < 0.001; Figure S4). Therefore, a second subgroup analysis was conducted specifically for the primary outcome of interest to investigate for potential differences among patients that received IVT as part of the BMT or not. After analysis of the available extracted data, IVT did not appear to significantly moderate the association of EVT with good functional
outcome at 3 months. However, EVT compared to BMT did not appear to increase the rates of good functional outcome when the available ORs were pooled from three out of 4 four included RCTs (Figure S9). A recently published meta-analysis of observational data comparing EVT plus IVT versus EVT alone in acute BAO patients showed better functional outcomes in the combined treatment group without a significant increase in sICH [24]. Furthermore, observational data from a high-volume center showed that BAO patients achieved a 3-month mRS of 0–3 in about 45% when treated by IVT only [25], which is identical to the proportions presented in the EVT groups among included RCTs. Regard- ing further research, direct EVT versus bridging therapy in the treatment of BAO is the matter of investigation in the BEST-BAO trial, which will soon start recruitment in China (Direct Endovascular Treatment Versus Bridging Treatment In Basilar Artery Occlusive Stroke; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; accessed on 29 November 2022; Unique identifier: NCT05631847).

Intracranial atherosclerosis is over-represented as a cause of AIS among RCTs con-
ducted in the Chinese population, and this may act as another limitation to the general-
izability of the results. Large artery atherosclerosis as the cause of AIS was 44% in the
ATTENTION trial, 66% in the BAOCHE trial and 53% in the BEST trial [11–13]. By com-
parison, in the BASICS international trial, 34% of patients had AIS due to large artery
atherosclerosis [10]. This discrepancy may have multifaceted treatment implications. First,
atherosclerotic BAO is associated with worse prognosis [26], and atherosclerotic LVO is a
therapeutic challenge that frequently necessitates angioplasty, stenting and intravenous
antithrombotic medications in the acute phase that may result in hemorrhagic complica-
tions [27]. The site of occlusion is also linked to the underlying etiology, since embolic
stroke will more frequently involve the distal basilar artery, whereas proximal BAO is
usually linked to atherosclerotic lesions of the vertebrobasilar junction. These differences
also have treatment implications, since it has been shown that recanalization rates are
higher in patients with distal BAO occlusions [28]. Furthermore, among all stroke sub-
types, adjunctive pharmacotherapy, such as antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, either
in the acute–subacute phase or as secondary stroke prevention measures, may inherently
influence the efficacy and safety following acute reperfusion therapies [29,30].

Regarding safety outcomes, sICH was more common in the interventional arm com-
pared to controls. The pooled proportion of sICH among patients that received EVT (5.4%)
may have been higher than the one reported by the HERMES collaboration (3.8%) [31],
but considering that a significant proportion of included patients were treated within the
prolonged time window, it should be underscored that it did not exceed the percentages
reported by either the DAWN or DEFUSE-3 trial (6% and 7%, respectively) [5,6]. Another
important fact is that the higher sICH rates were not translated into higher likelihood of
disability or mortality at 3 months.

In a previous systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by our group, an analysis of pooled RCT and real-world data did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the efficacy of EVT in patients with BAO [9]. Importantly, this result was mostly driven by the included RCTs (RR: 1.21, 95% CI 0.96–1.53) in comparison to the observational data that favored the intervention (RR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.53–0.85) [9]. Observational cohort studies, mirroring clinical practice in a real-world setting, have reported a significant proportion of patients achieving good functional outcomes at 3 months, ranging from 37 to 46% [9,32,33]. Furthermore, our previous meta-analysis did not include the two recent RCTs published in 2022. In our previous work, by using conditional probability analysis, we showed that a RCT with a sample size of 100 patients could shift the overall effect of the meta-analysis to a statistically significant result. ATTENTION [12] and BAOCHE [13] had a combined patient population of 557, providing enough power for a significant result to be achieved. Yet, those two studies used more restrictive inclusion criteria and selected patients with a more favorable profile toward EVT-associated efficacy: prolonged treatment time window, younger patients, with minimum pre-stroke disability and without significant ischemic
changes on baseline CT. Therefore, applicability of EVT in other cohorts than those selected by the included RCTs is still questionable.

Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have also aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of EVT plus BMT versus BMT alone [34–39]. One study provided a meta-analysis of pooled RCT and real-world data with inconclusive results [34], while another two studies included data from RCTs that were not published at that moment—but were presented during the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) 2022—resulting in significant uncertainty regarding quality assessment and critical interpretation of the results [35,36]. A pre-registered protocol was not available for two of the projects [35,36]. Stratification for IVT pre-treatment was not performed in the majority of the studies [34–36,38,39]. Finally, none of the existed projects provided an estimation for the robustness of the presented results following a fragility index meta-analysis.

Our present meta-analysis followed a prespecified protocol and included all available RCTs that have been completed and published to date, investigating EVT efficacy and safety of BAO patients. Additionally, it provided an estimate of robustness of the presented results while different potential sources of heterogeneity were addressed. Despite these strengths, several limitations of our study should also be acknowledged. First, other sources of heterogeneity could exist, considering the differences of the inclusion criteria among the studies, such as age, initial stroke severity, and time for stroke onset since randomization. Unfortunately, a meta-regression analysis with the aim of evaluating potential interference of these variables could not be performed, due to the limited number of studies included in the meta-analysis. An individual patient data meta-analysis, rather than a study-level meta-analysis, may explore these disparities and adjust for potential differences among the included patients, and therefore, a future collaboration could focus on such an effort. Apart from the observed heterogeneity, there were significant biases during quality assessment, especially due to deviations from intended interventions and absence of allocation concealment. Last and most important, the lack of robustness with regard to the association of EVT and practically all assessed efficacy and safety outcomes indicates caution in the interpretation of our findings.

## 5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the current meta-analysis showed that EVT combined with BMT was associated with a higher likelihood of achieving good functional outcome, functional independence and any functional improvement at 3 months compared to BMT alone. Despite the higher risk of any ICH and sICH among EVT-treated patients, 3-month mortality did not differ between the two groups. An individual patient data meta-analysis is warranted to further explore heterogeneity and to adjust for different potential confounders, providing further insight.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12072617/s1, Figure S1: Forest plot presenting the pooled mean of age (in years) of the patients enrolled in either arm of the included randomized-controlled clinical trials.; Figure S2: Forest plot presenting the pooled proportion of men among the total participants in the included randomized-controlled clinical trials.; Figure S3: Forest plot presenting the pooled median of NIHSS among the patients enrolled in either arm of the included randomized-controlled clinical trials, as calculated by the quantile estimation (QE) method.; Figure S4: Forest plot presenting the pooled proportion of patients receiving pretreatment with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) among the total participants in the included randomized-controlled clinical trials, after stratification for recruiting centers (limited to China versus international recruitment).; Figure S5: Summary plot presenting the quality assessment of included randomized controlled clinical trials using the Cochrane Collaboration tool (RoB 2).; Figure S6: Traffic Light Plot presenting the quality assessment of included randomized controlled clinical trials using the Cochrane Collaboration tool (RoB 2).; Figure S7: Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with good functional outcomes (mRS 0-3) at 3 months among acute basilar artery occlusion patients, after stratification for recruiting centers
(limited to China versus international recruitment); Figure S8: Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with good functional outcomes (mRS 0-3) at 3 months among acute basilar artery occlusion patients, after stratification for the administration of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and assessed by generic calculation of available Risk Ratios reported by the included studies.; Figure S9: Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with good functional outcomes (mRS 0-3) at 3 months among acute basilar artery occlusion patients, after stratification for the administration of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and assessed by generic calculation of available Odds Ratios reported by the included studies.; Figure S10: Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with functional independence (mRS 0-2) at 3 months among acute basilar artery occlusion patients.; Figure S11: Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with functional independence (mRS 0-2) at 3 months among acute basilar artery occlusion patients, after stratification for recruiting centers (limited to China versus international recruitment). Figure S12: Forest plot presenting the pooled adjusted common odds ratio for reduced disability at 3 months (improvement of at least 1 point on the mRS) in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion treated with endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) vs. BMT alone.; Figure S13: Forest plot presenting the pooled adjusted common odds ratio for reduced disability at 3 months (improvement of at least 1 point on the mRS) in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion treated with endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) vs. BMT alone, after stratification for recruiting centers (limited to China versus international recruitment).; Figure S14: Forest plot presenting the pooled proportion of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) among patients with acute basilar artery occlusion treated with endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT).; Figure S15: Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) among acute basilar artery occlusion patients, after stratification for recruiting centers (limited to China versus international recruitment).; Figure S16: Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with any intracranial hemorrhage (aICH) among acute basilar artery occlusion patients.; Figure S17: Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with any intracranial hemorrhage (aICH) among acute basilar artery occlusion patients, after stratification for recruiting centers (limited to China versus international recruitment).; Figure S18: Forest plot presenting the association of endovascular treatment (EVT) combined with best medical treatment (BMT) compared to BMT alone with mortality at 3 months among acute basilar artery occlusion patients, after stratification for recruiting centers (limited to China versus international recruitment). Table S1: Table of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion. References [40–46] are cited in Supplementary File.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, G.T. (Georgios Tsivgoulis); Data curation, L.P. and G.T. (Georgios Tsivgoulis); Formal analysis, L.P. and G.T. (Georgios Tsivgoulis); Investigation, L.P., A.E. and G.T. (Georgios Tsivgoulis); Methodology, L.P., A.E., A.H.K., A.S. and G.T. (Georgios Tsivgoulis); Supervision, G.T. (Georgios Tsivgoulis); Writing—original draft, L.P. and G.T. (Georgios Tsivgoulis); Writing—review and editing, A.E., A.H.K., A.S., G.M., S.S., G.V., S.V., D.A.d.S., G.T. (Georgios Tsivgoulis) and D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** All data used for this study are provided in this article and its accompanying Supplementary Materials.

**Acknowledgments:** Aristeidis Katsanos holds a McMaster University Department of Medicine Career Research Award.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
**Trial Registration:** The pre-specified protocol of the present systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42022373387).

## References

1. Tsivgoulis, G.; Safouris, A.; Katsanos, A.H.; Arthur, A.S.; Alexandrov, A.V. Mechanical thrombectomy for emergent large vessel occlusion: A critical appraisal of recent randomized controlled clinical trials. *Brain Behav. 2016*, *6*, e00418. [CrossRef]

2. Jadhav, A.P.; Desai, S.M.; Jovin, T.G. Indications for Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Current Guidelines and Beyond. *Neurology 2021*, *97*, S126-S136. [CrossRef]

3. Turc, G.; Bhogal, P.; Fischer, U.; Khatri, P.; Lobotesis, K.; Mazighi, M.; Schellinger, P.D.; Toni, D.; de Vries, J.; White, P.; et al. European Stroke Organisation (ESO)—European Society for Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy (ESMINT) Guidelines on Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Endorsed by Stroke Alliance for Europe (SAFE). *Eur. Stroke J. 2019*, *4*, 6-12. [CrossRef]

4. Powers, W.J.; Rabinstein, A.A.; Ackerson, T.; Adeoye, O.M.; Bambakidis, N.C.; Becker, K.; Biller, J.; Brown, M.; Demaerschalk, B.M.; Hoh, B.; et al. Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: 2019 Update to the 2018 Guidelines for the Early Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. *Stroke 2019*, *50*, e344-e418.

5. Albers, G.W.; Marks, M.P.; Kemp, S.; Christensen, S.; Tsai, J.P.; Ortega-Gutierrez, S.; McTaggart, R.A.; Torbey, M.T.; Kim-Tenser, M.; Leslie-Mazwi, T.; et al. Thrombectomy for Stroke at 6 to 16 Hours with Selection by Perfusion Imaging. *New Engl. J. Med. 2018*, *378*, 708-718. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6. Nogueira, R.G.; Jadhav, A.P.; Haussen, D.C.; Bonafe, A.; Budzik, R.F.; Bhuva, P.; Yavagal, D.R.; Ribo, M.; Cognard, C.; Hanel, R.A.; et al. Thrombectomy 6 to 24 Hours after Stroke with a Mismatch between Deficit and Infarct. *N. Engl. J. Med. 2018*, *378*, 11-21. [CrossRef]

7. Sommer, P.; Posekany, A.; Serles, W.; Marko, M.; Scharer, S.; Fertl, E.; Ferrari, J.; Lang, W.; Vosko, M.; Szabo, S.; et al. Is Functional Outcome Different in Posterior and Anterior Circulation Stroke? *Stroke 2018*, *49*, 2728-2732. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8. Schonewille, W.J.; Wijman, C.A.; Michel, P.; Rueckert, C.M.; Weimar, C.; Mattle, H.P.; Engelter, S.T.; Tanne, D.; Muir, K.W.; Molina, C.; et al. Treatment and outcomes of acute basilar artery occlusion in the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS): A prospective registry study. *Lancet Neurol. 2009*, *8*, 724-730. [CrossRef]

9. Katsanos, A.H.; Safouris, A.; Nikolakopoulos, S.; Mavridis, D.; Goyal, N.; Psychogios, M.N.; Magoufis, G.; Krogias, C.; Catanese, L.; Van Adel, B.; et al. Endovascular treatment for basilar artery occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *Eur. J. Neurol. 2021*, *28*, 2106-2110. [CrossRef]

10. Langezaal, L.C.; van der Hoeven, E.J.; Mont'Alverne, F.J.; de Carvalho, J.J.; Lima, F.O.; Dippel, D.W.; van der Lugt, A.; Lo, R.T.; Boiten, J.; Nijeholt, G.J.L.À.; et al. Endovascular Therapy for Stroke Due to Basilar-Artery Occlusion. *New Engl. J. Med. 2021*, *384*, 1910-1920. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11. Liu, X.; Dai, Q.; Ye, R.; Zi, W.; Liu, Y.; Wang, H.; Zhu, W.; Ma, M.; Yin, Q.; Li, M.; et al. Endovascular treatment versus standard medical treatment for vertebrobasilar artery occlusion (BEST): An open-label, randomised controlled trial. *Lancet Neurol. 2020*, *19*, 115-122. [CrossRef]

12. Tao, C.; Nogueira, R.G.; Zhu, Y.; Sun, J.; Han, H.; Yuan, G.; Wen, C.; Zhou, P.; Chen, W.; Zeng, G.; et al. Trial of Endovascular Treatment of Acute Basilar-Artery Occlusion. *New Engl. J. Med. 2022*, *387*, 1361-1372. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13. Jovin, T.G.; Li, C.; Wu, L.; Wu, C.; Chen, J.; Jiang, C.; Shi, Z.; Gao, Z.; Song, C.; Chen, W.; et al. Trial of Thrombectomy 6 to 24 Hours after Stroke Due to Basilar-Artery Occlusion. *New Engl. J. Med. 2022*, *387*, 1373-1384. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Moher, D. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. *J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021*, *134*, 103-112. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. *BMJ 2019*, *366*, l4898. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

16. DerSimonian, R.; Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. *Contemp. Clin. Trials 2015*, *45*, 139-145. [CrossRef]

17. Borenstein, M.; Higgins, J.P. Meta-analysis and subgroups. *Prev. Sci. Off. J. Soc. Prev. Res. 2013*, *14*, 134-143. [CrossRef]

18. Egger, M.; Davey Smith, G.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. *BMJ 1997*, *315*, 629-634. [CrossRef]

19. Atal, I.; Porcher, R.; Ravaud, P. Fragility Index of Meta-Analyses. Available online: https://clinicalepidemio.fr/fragility_ma/ (accessed on 29 November 2022).

20. Mun, K.T.; Bonomo, J.B.; Liebeskind, D.S.; Saver, J.L. Fragility Index Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Shows Highly Robust Evidential Strength for Benefit of <3 Hour Intravenous Alteplase. *Stroke 2022*, *53*, 2069-2074.

21. Deeks, J.J.; Higgins, J.P.; Altman, D.G. Chapter 10: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (Updated February 2022). Cochrane. 2022. Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10 (accessed on 29 November 2022).
22. Wallace, B.C.; Dahabreh, I.J.; Trikalinos, T.A.; Lau, J.; Trow, P.; Schmid, C.H. Closing the Gap between Methodologists and End-Users: R as a Computational Back-End. *J. Stat. Softw.* **2012**, *49*, 1–15. [CrossRef]

23. Nogueira, R.G.; Tsivgoulis, G. Large Vessel Occlusion Strokes After the DIRECT-MT and SKIP Trials: Is the Alteplase Syringe Half Empty or Half Full? *Stroke* **2020**, *51*, 3182–3186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

24. Kohli, G.S.; Schartz, D.; Whyte, R.; Akkipeddi, S.M.; Ellens, N.R.; Bhalla, T.; Mattingly, T.K.; Bender, M.T. Endovascular thrombectomy with or without intravenous thrombolysis in acute basilar artery occlusion ischemic stroke: A meta-analysis. *J. Stroke Cereb. Dis.* **2022**, *31*, 28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

25. Strbian, D.; Sairanen, T.; Silvennoinen, H.; Salonen, O.; Kaste, M.; Lindsberg, P.J. Thrombolysis of basilar artery occlusion: Impact of baseline ischemia and time. *Ann. Neurol.* **2013**, *73*, 688–694. [CrossRef]

26. Lee, Y.Y.; Yoon, W.; Kim, S.K.; Baek, B.H.; Kim, G.S.; Kim, J.T.; Park, M. Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion: Differences in Characteristics and Outcomes after Endovascular Therapy between Patients with and without Underlying Severe Atherosclerotic Stenosis. *Am. J. Neuroradiol.* **2017**, *38*, 1600–1604. [CrossRef]

27. Lee, J.S.; Lee, S.J.; Hong, J.M.; Alverne, F.; Lima, F.O.; Nogueira, R.G. Endovascular Treatment of Large Vessel Occlusion Strokes Due to Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease. *J. Stroke* **2022**, *24*, 3–20. [CrossRef]

28. Mutke, M.A.; Potreck, A.; Schmitt, N.; Seker, F.; Ringleb, P.A.; Nagel, S.; Möhlenbruch, M.A.; Bendszus, M.; Weyland, C.S.; Jesser, J. Exact Basilar Artery Occlusion Location Indicates Stroke Etiology and Recanalization Success in Patients Eligible for Endovascular Stroke Treatment. *Clin. Neuroradiol.* **2022**, ahead of print. [CrossRef]

29. Tornyos, D.; Bálint, A.; Kupó, P.; El Abdallaoui, O.E.A.; Komócsi, A. Antithrombotic Therapy for Secondary Prevention in Patients with Non-Cardioembolic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: A Systematic Review. *Life* **2021**, *11*, 447.

30. Tornyos, D.; Komócsi, A.; Bálint, A.; Kupó, P.; El Abdallaoui, O.E.A.; Szapáry, L.; Szapáry, L.B. Antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack: A multiple treatment network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. *PLoS ONE* **2022**, *17*, e0273103. [CrossRef]

31. Román, L.S.; Menon, B.K.; Blasco, J.; Hernández-Pérez, M.; Dávalos, A.; Majoie, C.B.L.M.; Campbell, B.C.V.; Guillemin, F.; Lingsma, H.; Anxionnat, R.; et al. Imaging features and safety and efficacy of endovascular stroke treatment: A meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. *Lancet Neurol.* **2018**, *17*, 895–904. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

32. Bouslama, M.; Haussen, D.C.; Aghaebrahim, A.; Grossberg, J.A.; Walker, G.; Rangaraju, S.; Horev, A.; Frankel, M.R.; Nogueira, R.G.; Jovin, T.G.; et al. Predictors of Good Outcome After Endovascular Therapy for Vertebrobasilar Occlusion Stroke. *Stroke* **2017**, *48*, 3252–3257. [CrossRef]

33. Alexandre, A.; Valente, I.; Consoli, A.; Piano, M.; Renieri, L.; Gabrieli, J.; Russo, R.; Caragliano, A.; Ruggiero, M.; Saletti, A.; et al. Posterior Circulation Endovascular Thrombectomy for Large-Vessel Occlusion: Predictors of Favorable Clinical Outcome and Analysis of First-Pass Effect. *Am. J. Neuroradiol.* **2021**, *42*, 896–903. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

34. Zhao, Y.; Zhao, W.; Guo, Y.; Li, Y. Endovascular thrombectomy versus standard medical treatment for stroke patients with acute basilar artery occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *J. Neurointerv. Surg.* **2022**, *14*, 1173–1179. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

35. Malik, A.; Drumm, B.; D'Anna, L.; Brooks, I.; Low, B.; Raha, O.; Shabbir, K.; Vittay, O.; Kwan, J.; Brown, Z.; et al. Mechanical thrombectomy in acute basilar artery stroke: A systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. *BMC Neurol.* **2022**, *22*, 415.

36. Xu, J.; Chen, X.; Chen, S.; Cao, W.; Zhao, H.; Ni, W.; Zhang, Y.; Gao, C.; Gu, Y.; Cheng, X.; et al. Endovascular treatment for basilar artery occlusion: A meta-analysis. *Stroke Vasc. Neurol.* **2022**, *8*, 1–3. [CrossRef]

37. Lin, C.H.; Liebeskind, D.S.; Ovbiagele, B.; Lee, M.; Saver, J.L. Efficacy of endovascular therapy for basilar and vertebral artery occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. *Eur. J. Intern. Med.* **2022**, *110*, 22–28. [CrossRef]

38. Abdalkader, M.; Finitsis, S.; Li, C.; Hu, W.; Liu, X.; Ji, X.; Huo, X.; Alemseged, F.; Qiu, Z.; Strbian, D.; et al. Endovascular versus Medical Management of Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Randomized Controlled Trials. *J. Stroke* **2023**, *25*, 81–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

39. Yu, Y.; Lou, Y.; Cui, R.; Miao, Z.; Lou, X.; Ma, N. Endovascular treatment versus standard medical treatment for basilar artery occlusion: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. *J. Neurosurg.* **2023**, 1–9. [Online ahead of print. [CrossRef]

40. Li, F.; Sang, H.; Song, J.; Guo, Z.; Liu, S.; Luo, W.; Yuan, J.; Qiu, Z.; Huang, J.; Chen, L.; et al. One-Year Outcome After Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion. *Stroke* **2022**, *53*, [CrossRef]

41. Pirson, F.A.V.; Boodt, N.; Brouwer, J.; Bruggeman, A.A.; Hartog, S.J.D.; Goldhoorn, R.-J.B.; Langezaal, L.C.; Staals, J.; van Zwam, W.H.; van der Leij, C.; et al. Endovascular Treatment for Posterior Circulation Stroke in Routine Clinical Practice: Results of the Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands Registry. *Stroke* **2022**, *53*, 758–768. [CrossRef]

42. Schonewille, W.J. Favorable Outcomes in Endovascular Therapy for Basilar-Artery Occlusion. *New Engl. J. Med.* **2022**, *387*, 1428–1429. [CrossRef]

43. Singer, O.C.; Berkefeld, J.; Nolte, C.; Bohner, G.; Haring, H.-P.; Trenkler, J.; Gröschel, K.; Müller-Forell, W.; Niederkorn, K.; Deutschmann, H.; et al. Mechanical recanalization in basilar artery occlusion: The ENDOSTROKE study. *Ann. Neurol.* **2014**, *77*, 415–424. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Tao, C.; Qureshi, A.I.; Yin, Y.; Li, J.; Li, R.; Xu, P.; Sun, J.; Liao, G.; Yue, X.; Shi, H.; et al. Endovascular Treatment Versus Best Medical Management in Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Strokes: Results from the ATTENTION Multicenter Registry. *Circulation* **2022**, *146*, 6–17. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

45. Writing Group for the BASILAR Group; Zi, W.; Qiu, Z.; Wu, D.; Li, F.; Liu, H.; Liu, W.; Huang, W.; Shi, Z.; Bai, Y.; et al. Assessment of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion via a Nationwide Prospective Registry. *JAMA Neurol.* **2020**, *77*, 561–573. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

46. McGrath, S.; Sohn, H.; Steele, R.; Benedetti, A. Meta-analysis of the difference of medians. *Biom. J.* **2019**, *62*, 69–98. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.