Abstract
Rationale:
The increasing use of thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke highlights the need to better understand its complications. Vessel perforation leading to active intracranial bleeding is a severe complication associated with a poor outcome and a mortality rate of approximately 50%. The etiology and risk factors for this severe complication remain largely unknown, and there is limited evidence to guide decision-making regarding endovascular hemostatic strategies and the continuation of thrombectomy after perforation.
Design:
The Perforation EVents during ENdovascular Therapy for acute ischemic stroke (PREVENT) Registry is an international, multicenter, prospective, and retrospective study, collecting data on vessel perforations during thrombectomy. The registry aims to include 500 cases of vessel perforation and 500 matched controls without perforation. The collected data will consist of both tabulated data and periprocedural imaging, which is to be analyzed centrally by an imaging core laboratory. Data will be analyzed using a case–control method, employing both univariate and multivariate statistical analyses.
Objectives:
The primary objectives of this study are to (1) identify risk factors for vessel perforation, (2) explore the underlying pathophysiology, (3) develop a classification system for vessel perforations, (4) compare different hemostatic treatment strategies, (5) evaluate the impact of continuing versus aborting thrombectomy after perforation, and (6) propose a safety-optimized thrombectomy technique.
Discussion:
Given the frequency and hyperacute nature of vessel perforations, a prospective randomized study is not feasible. This large, international registry provides a robust approach to collecting real-world evidence, reducing bias through multicenter data collection and case matching. The findings may help improve clinical decision-making and enhance patient safety during thrombectomy procedures.
Clinical trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT06394180.
Introduction
Stroke is the second leading cause of death and the leading cause of disability, both globally and in Europe (1, 2). Thrombectomy has revolutionized the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, following evidence from five randomized controlled trials demonstrating a substantial benefit in patients with large-vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation (3). Since then, the indications for thrombectomy have continued to expand (4), including patients with posterior circulation occlusions (5, 6), selected patients presenting late after symptom onset (7–9), and patients with large infarcts (10, 11). Patients with medium or distal vessel occlusions (MDVOs) are also increasingly being considered for thrombectomy (4, 12, 13). Two recent randomized controlled trials did not demonstrate the superiority of MDVO thrombectomy over best medical treatment alone (14, 15). One trial reported a higher number of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages (sICHs) and a higher mortality in the thrombectomy group (14). A third trial was stopped early for futility and also reported a higher rate of sICH in the thrombectomy group compared to the best medical management group (16).
These findings might point towards a different aspect of thrombectomy: despite its effectiveness, the procedure is not without the risk of periprocedural complications. Intracranial vessel perforation with subsequent arterial bleeding occurs in 1–6% of thrombectomies (17–20). This complication is typically a critical event, with permanent consequences (21, 22) and a mortality rate of approximately 50% (17, 19, 23). Given the rapidly increasing number of thrombectomies, an increase in the incidence of periprocedural perforations is to be expected. This is particularly relevant for MDVO thrombectomy, as the incidence of vessel perforations has been reported to be twice that of LVO thrombectomy (17).
The available data on vessel perforations during thrombectomy are limited (21). It is unknown why some patients experience this complication, while the majority are spared. Similarly, the underlying pathophysiological process that leads to vessel wall damage is not understood. There is uncertainty about which patients benefit from endovascular hemostatic treatment to achieve cessation of active bleeding and whether temporary vessel occlusion (e.g., using an intracranial balloon catheter or by deploying coils without detachment) or permanent vessel occlusion (e.g., using liquid embolic agents or permanent coiling) is more appropriate. In addition, limited data are available on whether thrombectomy should continue after a perforation occurs or whether the procedure should be aborted. Given the low frequency of this complication and its hyperacute nature, randomized prospective trials are unlikely to be feasible.
Methods and analysis
Design
The Perforation EVents during ENdovascular Therapy for acute ischemic stroke (PREVENT) Registry is an international, multicenter, prospective, and retrospective observational study collecting data on vessel perforations during thrombectomy.
Data collection includes the following:
-
Patient baseline data (e.g., age, sex, pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS), pre-stroke anticoagulation or platelet therapy, and others).
-
Data on the initial ischemic event (e.g., NIHSS at admission, number and location of vessel occlusions, TOAST classification [trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment], imaging features related to clot composition, intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) or primary intracranial dissection, non-interventional stroke management, and other relevant factors).
-
Details on circumstances and technique of the thrombectomy (e.g., anesthesiological management, type of aortic arch, cervical stenosis, thrombectomy technique, design and dimensions of the thrombectomy devices, operator experience, and others).
-
Hemostatic therapy (e.g., non-endovascular hemostatic measures such as lowering of the systemic blood pressure or medication with coagulation effects, endovascular hemostatic measures including timing, exact mechanism, effectiveness, and other relevant factors).
-
Outcome measures (e.g., functional outcomes including mRS at 90 days, and imaging outcomes including recanalization status, volume of intracranial hemorrhage, and other relevant factors).
The collected data are stored safely in a REDCap database. Periprocedural imaging and the first postinterventional CT or MRI are obtained for the extraction of quantifiable imaging parameters, exploration of patterns, and quantification of the volume of extravasated blood and contrast agents. Imaging data are stored in a safe, password-protected Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) at Basel University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. The duration of active intracranial bleeding is derived from the time stamps of the digital subtraction angiography series during thrombectomy displaying contrast extravasation. The collateral status will be derived from the first intraprocedural angiographic run. The flow rate of extravasation (i.e., the volume of extravasation per second) will be classified by the imaging core laboratory based on the first angiographic run that demonstrates extravasation. This will be used as a surrogate for perforation magnitude. A semi-quantitative assessment of the flow rate of extravasation will be sought, if technically feasible. Imaging evaluation will be carried out by a central imaging core laboratory to ensure a consistent interpretation.
PREVENT exclusively consists of data and imaging that have initially been collected for clinical purposes of patient care. As an observational study, PREVENT does not contain a randomization.
PREVENT aims to answer the following questions:
-
Which risk factors are associated with the occurrence of vessel perforations during thrombectomy?
-
Is it possible to identify distinct mechanisms of vessel perforation? Is it possible to describe pathophysiological phenomena associated with vessel perforation?
-
Are there groups of perforations that can be distinguished in terms of risk profiles and the need for urgent complication management, on the basis of which a classification system can be created? If so, can a pathophysiological explanation be found for the differences between these groups?
-
In patients with ongoing contrast extravasation, which individuals should receive endovascular therapy to achieve hemostasis? How do specific hemostatic strategies compare to others regarding efficacy and safety?
-
In patients in whom ongoing contrast extravasation has stopped, should thrombectomy be continued, or should the procedure be aborted?
-
Based on the insights gained from PREVENT, is it possible to design a safety-optimized thrombectomy technique that may be used if patient-related risk factors imply an increased risk of vessel perforation?
Figure 1 shows the aims of the PREVENT registry.
Figure 1
Aims of the PREVENT registry. PREVENT, Perforation EVents during ENdovascular Therapy for acute ischemic stroke.
Selection/treatment of subjects
Adult patients (≥18 years) who underwent thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke on or after 1 January 2015 and experienced a periprocedural vessel perforation will be included. Vessel perforation is defined as contrast extravasation in at least one angiography series. Patients will be excluded if intracranial hemorrhage was present on pre-interventional imaging, if vessel wall damage was due to intracranial dissection without active contrast extravasation, if vessel perforation was due to the rupture of a pre-existing intracranial aneurysm (i.e., extravasation originates from an aneurysmal outpouching or dilation of an intracranial artery on the first run that demonstrates extravasation), or if vessel perforation led to the development of an arteriovenous fistula (e.g., carotid-cavernous fistula), but not to subarachnoid hemorrhage.
To evaluate risk factors that predispose patients to perforations, PREVENT is designed as a case–control registry. For the inclusion of each patient who experiences a perforation during thrombectomy, one matched patient of the same sex and similar age, with acute ischemic stroke due to vessel occlusion in the same vascular segment and treated at the same center, but without perforation, will be included.
Data analysis
Summary tables for patient demographics as well as baseline and intervention characteristics will be provided. Further statistical analysis will be tailored for each of the study’s aims. The methods per aim are presented below, following the same order:
-
To identify risk factors associated with vessel perforations, we will, in the first stage, make comparisons between cases with and without perforation during thrombectomy for predefined risk factors. Statistical analyses will include paired samples t-test, Wilcoxon test, and chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. Furthermore, multivariable logistic regression models can be used to identify the association between multiple variables and the occurrence of vessel perforations.
-
An exploratory analysis of the interventional image material in the central image analysis laboratory is planned. After reviewing the image material of approximately 20% of patients with explorative intention, imaging criteria will be defined with regard to possible mechanisms of vessel wall injury and distinct pathophysiological phenomena. These criteria will be used to classify the remaining 80% of patients. Due to the exploratory nature, no definitive statistical evaluation strategy can yet be determined.
-
For this purpose, data-driven K-nearest neighbor clustering will be applied to identify different groups of similar patient characteristics. We will consider 2–4 clusters, and the distribution of the clusters will be inspected visually. After the identification of the clusters, we will compare the pathophysiological characteristics between the clusters.
-
Patients with perforation will be divided into two groups: patients who received interventional hemostatic therapy after the perforation occurred—e.g., temporary intracranial balloon occlusion or permanent vessel occlusion with liquid embolization or coils—and patients who did not receive hemostatic therapy. Propensity score matching or inverse probability of treatment weighting will be used to control for the location of perforation and the flow rate of extravasation. The two groups will be compared with each other to identify differences in the duration of extravasation and in clinical outcomes. The appropriate statistical model will be used for each of the clinical outcomes (e.g., logistic regression model for binary outcomes and ordinal regression model for ordinal outcomes).
-
Patients with perforation will be divided into two groups: patients in whom thrombectomy was continued after the perforation occurred and patients in whom the procedure was aborted. Propensity score matching or inverse probability of treatment weighting will be used to control for the amount of extravasation, stroke severity, occlusion location, collateral status, and other clinical outcome predictors. The two groups will be compared with each other to identify differences in clinical outcomes.
-
The new insights on risk factors, mechanisms, and pathophysiology of vessel perforation will be gathered. An expert panel will discuss potential modifications to current thrombectomy workflows to reduce the risk of periprocedural perforation, both in response to specific patient-related risk factors (e.g., occlusion location and vessel tortuosity) and in general. No definitive statistical evaluation strategy can yet be determined.
Discussion
Randomized controlled trials have established the efficacy of thrombectomy, providing a strong foundation for guideline recommendations (3, 5, 6, 8–11). However, as materials and interventional strategies continue to evolve, thrombectomy techniques are constantly being refined. Enhancing the safety of thrombectomy presents a unique challenge: prospective trials are typically not designed to detect complications that occur at low frequencies. However, these complications can be severe, often carrying profound or even fatal consequences for affected patients (17–19, 21, 23). Therefore, efforts to improve thrombectomy should focus not only on optimizing reperfusion but also on preventing complications whenever possible and enhancing complication management strategies. This becomes even more crucial given the expanding indications for thrombectomy. The net benefit of thrombectomy is presumed to be lower in patients with low National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores at presentation or those with medium or distal vessel occlusions (MDVOs) than in the HERMES meta-analysis cohort. While minimizing adverse events is always important, the impact of severe complications may be even more pronounced in these patient populations since the natural course of disease is less severe. Consequently, improving procedural safety could help extend thrombectomy indications to patients who might otherwise be excluded due to safety concerns.
By focusing exclusively on vessel perforations during thrombectomy, the PREVENT registry represents a dedicated effort to target a specific safety aspect of thrombectomy. Unlike prospective randomized trials, which would be unfeasible due to the rarity and acute nature of this complication, PREVENT allows for the collection of a large, real-world dataset across multiple institutions. The matched case–control approach enables comparisons between patients with and without perforation under otherwise similar conditions. This may help to identify characteristics of the patient (e.g., neurovascular risk factors), the procedure setting (e.g., anesthesiologic strategy), or the devices (e.g., dimensions in relation to vessel diameters) that might be associated with increased risks. Additionally, the centralized imaging analysis ensures a standardized interpretation of angiographic and postprocedural imaging, allowing for the identification of distinct pathophysiological patterns of vessel perforation. A comparison between different hemostatic strategies (e.g., medical management only, temporary vessel occlusion, and permanent vessel occlusion) may provide insights into their effectiveness. By leveraging data that have been previously collected in routine clinical practice, PREVENT circumvents ethical and logistical barriers inherent in interventional trials while still providing robust insights into the mechanisms, management, and potential prevention of vessel perforations in thrombectomy.
Statements
Author’s note
The study results will be submitted for presentation at large international scientific congresses and for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Ethics statement
PREVENT is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT06394180 and has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland with a waiver of informed consent due to anonymization of the submitted data. PREVENT is officially endorsed by ESMINT (European Society of Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy).
Author contributions
VS-Z: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NR: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing. HM: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. GS: Data curation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. MK: Writing – review & editing. LB: Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. SP: Investigation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing. AB: Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – review & editing. UF: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. M-NP: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The PREVENT registry received funding provided by the following institutions: Basel University, Basel, Switzerland; Bangerter-Rhyner-Foundation Basel, Basel, Switzerland; and Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Eleftherios Remoundos for his help with the preparation of Figure 1.
Conflict of interest
VS-Z discloses speaker fees from Medtronic Inc. (money paid to the institution). M-NP discloses unrestricted grants from Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF), Bangerter-Rhyner Stiftung, Stryker Neurovascular Inc., Phenox GmbH, Medtronic Inc., Rapid Medical Inc., and Penumbra Inc. for the DISTAL trial, a grant for the SPINNERS trial from Siemens Healthineers AG (money paid to institution), and the following speaker fees: Stryker Neurovascular Inc., Medtronic Inc., Penumbra Inc., Acandis GmbH, Phenox GmbH, Rapid Medical Inc., and Siemens Healthineers AG (money paid to institution). UF reported research support from the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Swiss Heart Foundation. PI of the ELAN trial, Co-PI of the DISTAL, TECNO, SWIFT DIRECT, SWITCH, ELAPSE, and ICARUS trials. Research grants from Medtronic (BEYOND SWIFT, SWIFT DIRECT) and from Stryker, Rapid Medical, Penumbra, Medtronic, and Phenox (DISTAL), Boehringer Ingelheim (TECNO). Support of the Horton Foundation for the DO IT trial. Consultancies for Medtronic (fees paid to the institution). Participation in an advisory board for AstraZeneca (former Alexion/Portola), Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biogen, AbbVie, Siemens (fees paid to institution). Member of a clinical event committee (CEC) of the COATING study (Phenox). Member of the data and safety monitoring committee (DSMB) of the TITAN, LATE_MT, IN EXTREMIS, and RapidPulse trials. President of the Swiss Neurological Society and president-elect of the European Stroke Organization.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The handling editor SM declared a past co-authorship/collaboration [First-line Aspiration Thrombectomy with the RED43 Catheter for Acute Ischemic Stroke due to Medium or Distal Vessel Occlusion] with the authors AB and M-NP.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. ChatGPT-4-turbo (OpenAI) was used to enhance the readability of the abstract, specifically for grammar and style editing, sentence restructuring, and paragraph refinement. The authors reviewed and edited all suggestions provided by ChatGPT-4-turbo and take full responsibility for the final manuscript content.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Abbreviations
ICAD, Intracranial atherosclerotic disease; LVO, Large-vessel occlusion; MDVO, Medium or distal vessel occlusion; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; PACS, Picture Archiving and Communication System; PREVENT, Perforation EVents during ENdovascular Therapy for acute ischemic stroke; SAH, Subarachnoid hemorrhage; sICH, Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage; TOAST, Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment.
References
1.
Wafa HA Wolfe CDA Emmett E Roth GA Johnson CO Wang Y . Burden of stroke in Europe. Stroke. (2020) 51:2418–27. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029606,
2.
Feigin VL Brainin M Norrving B Martins S Sacco RL Hacke W et al . World stroke organization (WSO): global stroke fact sheet 2022. Int J Stroke. (2022) 17:18–29. doi: 10.1177/17474930211065917
3.
Goyal M Menon BK van Zwam WH Dippel DWJ Mitchell PJ Demchuk AM et al . Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Lancet. (2016) 387:1723–31. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00163-X,
4.
Sporns PB Fiehler J Ospel J Safouris A Hanning U Fischer U et al . Expanding indications for endovascular thrombectomy-how to leave no patient behind. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. (2021) 14:1756286421998905. doi: 10.1177/1756286421998905,
5.
Jovin TG Li C Wu L Wu C Chen J Jiang C et al . Trial of Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke due to basilar-artery occlusion. N Engl J Med. (2022) 387:1373–84. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2207576,
6.
Tao C Nogueira RG Zhu Y Sun J Han H Yuan G et al . Trial of endovascular treatment of acute basilar-artery occlusion. N Engl J Med. (2022) 387:1361–72. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2206317,
7.
Dittrich TD Sporns PB Kriemler LF Rudin S Nguyen A Zietz A et al . Mechanical Thrombectomy versus best medical treatment in the late time window in non-DEFUSE-non-DAWN patients: a multicenter cohort study. Stroke. (2023) 54:722–30. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.039793,
8.
Albers GW Marks MP Kemp S Christensen S Tsai JP Ortega-Gutierrez S et al . Thrombectomy for stroke at 6 to 16 hours with selection by perfusion imaging. N Engl J Med. (2018) 378:708–18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1713973,
9.
Nogueira RG Jadhav AP Haussen DC Bonafe A Budzik RF Bhuva P et al . Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke with a mismatch between deficit and infarct. N Engl J Med. (2018) 378:11–21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1706442,
10.
Sarraj A Hassan AE Abraham MG Ortega-Gutierrez S Kasner SE Hussain MS et al . Trial of endovascular Thrombectomy for large ischemic strokes. N Engl J Med. (2023) 388:1259–71. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2214403,
11.
Huo X Ma G Tong X Zhang X Pan Y Nguyen TN et al . Trial of endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke with large infarct. N Engl J Med. (2023) 388:1272–83. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2213379
12.
Saver JL Chapot R Agid R Hassan AE Jadhav AP Liebeskind DS et al . Thrombectomy for distal, medium vessel occlusions. Stroke. (2020) 51:2872–84. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.028956,
13.
Ospel JM Goyal M . A review of endovascular treatment for medium vessel occlusion stroke. J Neurointerv Surg. (2021) 13:623–30. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017321,
14.
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) 392:1385–95. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2411668
15.
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) 392:1374–84. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2408954
16.
Chen M Samaniego EA Martínez-Galdámez M Andrew De Leacy R Hirsch JA Fiorella D et al . Thrombectomy for medium vessel occlusions: too far too soon?J Neurointerv Surg. (2025) 17:337–9. doi: 10.1136/jnis-2025-023248,
17.
Schulze-Zachau V Brehm A Ntoulias N Krug N Tsogkas I Blackham KA et al . Kristine Ann Blackham, Markus a Möhlenbruch, Jessica Jesser, Amedeo Cervo, Kornelia Kreiser, et al. incidence and outcome of perforations during medium vessel occlusion compared with large vessel occlusion thrombectomy. J Neurointerv Surg. (2023) 16:775–80. doi: 10.1136/jnis-2023-020531
18.
Schulze-Zachau V Rommers N Ntoulias N Brehm A Krug N Tsogkas I et al . Insights into vessel perforations during thrombectomy: characteristics of a severe complication and the effect of thrombolysis. Eur Stroke J. (2024) 10:63–73. doi: 10.1177/23969873241272542,
19.
Dmytriw AA Musmar B Salim H Ghozy S Siegler JE Kobeissi H et al . Incidence and clinical outcomes of perforations during mechanical thrombectomy for medium vessel occlusion in acute ischemic stroke: a retrospective, multicenter, and multinational study. Eur Stroke J. (2024) 9:328–37. doi: 10.1177/23969873231219412,
20.
Vega P Murias E Jimenez JM Chaviano J Rodriguez J Calleja S et al . First-line double Stentriever Thrombectomy for M1/TICA occlusions. Clin Neuroradiol. (2022) 32:971–7. doi: 10.1007/s00062-022-01161-2,
21.
Mokin M Fargen KM Primiani CT Ren Z Dumont TM Brasiliense LBC et al . Vessel perforation during stent retriever thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: technical details and clinical outcomes. J Neurointerv Surg. (2017) 9:922–8. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012707,
22.
Salsano G Pracucci G Mavilio N Saia V Bandettini di Poggio M Malfatto L et al . Complications of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: incidence, risk factors, and clinical relevance in the Italian registry of endovascular treatment in acute stroke. Int J Stroke. (2021) 16:818–27. doi: 10.1177/1747493020976681,
23.
van der Sluijs PM Su R Cornelissen SAP van Es ACGM Lycklama a Nijeholt G Roozenbeek B et al . Clinical consequence of vessel perforations during endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Neuroradiology. (2024) 66:237–47. doi: 10.1007/s00234-023-03246-2,
Summary
Keywords
stroke, thrombectomy, complication, intracranial hemorrhage, multicenter
Citation
Schulze-Zachau V, Rommers N, Muenger H, Singh GK, Katan M, Balmer L, Psychogios S, Brehm A, Fischer U and Psychogios M-N (2026) PREVENT: Towards the prevention of intracranial vessel perforations during mechanical thrombectomy – protocol for a multicenter registry study. Front. Neurol. 16:1680379. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2025.1680379
Received
05 August 2025
Revised
09 November 2025
Accepted
25 November 2025
Published
23 January 2026
Volume
16 - 2025
Edited by
Stephan Meckel, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Germany
Reviewed by
Luis Rafael Moscote-Salazar, Colombian Clinical Research Group in Neurocritical Care, Colombia
Mohamed Abdelrady, CHRU Brest, France
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Schulze-Zachau, Rommers, Muenger, Singh, Katan, Balmer, Psychogios, Brehm, Fischer and Psychogios.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Victor Schulze-Zachau, victor.schulze-zachau@posteo.ch
† Present address: Victor Schulze-Zachau, Neuroradiology Department, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.