CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-01). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 1901 · Search date 2026-08-01 · Methodology v0.6

Mechanical thrombectomy,
does it really help with Reduced 90-day disability and increased good functional status after acute basilar-artery occlusion stroke?

30-Second Summary
B
Evidence Grade B · 79 · Safety caution
Thrombectomy substantially improved 90-day function in two basilar-occlusion trials
Vascular injury, embolization, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage are procedural risks requiring emergency imaging selection and a specialist stroke center.
What the
research shows
The grade is B. ATTENTION and BAOCHE found large absolute gains of about 23 and 22 percentage points in 90-day mRS 0-3. Four authors overlapped, however, and the independent BASICS team did not confirm improved functional independence, so the exceptional A requirement for independent replication is not met; the score is B with 79 points.
What the
ads claim
Marketing should report 90-day disability and procedural harms, not recanalization success alone.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Mechanical thrombectomy uses an endovascular catheter to retrieve or aspirate an occluding clot.
  • Anterior-circulation verdict 1152 is A with 97 points and pools individual data from five randomized trials, a broader evidence base than this posterior-circulation record.
  • Eligibility depends on imaging, clinical severity, timing, and emergency stroke-team assessment.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 1901 · B 79
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

ATTENTION randomized and analyzed 340 participants, 226 versus 114. BAOCHE randomized and analyzed 217, 110 versus 107. ATTENTION used university-hospital and nonprofit funding and BAOCHE used Chinese science-ministry funding, but overlapping investigators fail the rule requiring independence of both investigators and funding.

02

Why this is classified as B (79)

Large patient-centered functional benefits were consistent, but independent-investigator confirmation is absent, giving B with 79 points.

Counterpoint. The grade applies to imaging-confirmed acute basilar occlusion in patients resembling trial eligibility, not every posterior-circulation stroke.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Large 90-day functional benefits were consistent, but shared authors in the pivotal trials and nonconfirmation in independent BASICS prevent independent replication

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointPPatient-reported treatment goal - the symptom is the goal
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (B).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Increased 90-day modified Rankin score 0-3BTwo trials showed consistent absolute increases of about 22-23 points, but the investigators were not independent.
Increased functional independence at 90 daysBStricter outcomes favored treatment in the two pivotal trials, but independent BASICS did not confirm functional independence.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Multicenter randomized open-label superiority trial with blinded endpoint assessment114Chinese university-hospital innovation program and nonprofit stroke and cardiovascular foundationsPrimary endpoint: modified Rankin score 0-3 at 90 days104/226 (46%) versus 26/114 (23%), adjusted risk ratio 2.06 (95% CI 1.46 to 2.91), P<0.001.Pivotal randomized functional-outcome evidence
Study 2Multicenter randomized open-label superiority trial with blinded endpoint assessment107Public grant from the Chinese National Ministry of Science and TechnologyPrimary endpoint: modified Rankin score 0-3 at 90 days51/110 (46%) versus 26/107 (24%), adjusted risk ratio 1.81 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.60), P<0.001.Consistent randomized trial with overlapping authors
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-01).

Tao C, Nogueira RG, Zhu Y, et al. Trial of Endovascular Treatment of Acute Basilar-Artery Occlusion. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1361-1372. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2206317.
checked
Jovin TG, Li C, Wu L, et al. Trial of Thrombectomy 6 to 24 Hours after Stroke Due to Basilar-Artery Occlusion. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1373-1384. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2207576.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-01 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Mechanical thrombectomy x 90-day functional recovery after basilar-artery occlusion Evidence Grade B card
[Chamgap] Mechanical thrombectomy x 90-day functional recovery after basilar-artery occlusion — Evidence Grade B·79. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/cognition/mechanical-thrombectomy-basilar-artery-occlusion-functional-outcome/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.