← Back
NeuroTrials.ai
Neurology Clinical Trial Database

ESCAPE-MeVO

Endovascular Treatment of Stroke Due to Medium-Vessel Occlusion

Year of Publication: 2025

Authors: M. Goyal, J. M. Ospel, A. Ganesh, ..., M.A. Mühlenbruch

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine

Citation: N Engl J Med 2025; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2411668

Link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2411668


Clinical Question

Does endovascular thrombectomy improve outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to medium-vessel occlusion within 12 hours?

Bottom Line

EVT did not improve functional outcomes in medium-vessel occlusion (MeVO) stroke: mRS 0-1 at 90 days 41.6% vs 43.1% (adjusted RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.79-1.15; P=0.61). Mortality was significantly higher with EVT (13.3% vs 8.4%; adjusted HR 1.82; 1.06-3.12). SAEs higher with EVT (33.9% vs 25.7%), including more sICH (5.4% vs 2.2%). First RCT of EVT for MeVO. 529 patients, 58 sites, 5 countries.

Major Points

  • EVT did NOT improve outcomes in MeVO: mRS 0-1 41.6% vs 43.1% (adjusted RR 0.95; P=0.61).
  • EVT associated with HIGHER mortality: 13.3% vs 8.4% (adjusted HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.06-3.12).
  • More SAEs with EVT: 33.9% vs 25.7% — including sICH 5.4% vs 2.2%, pneumonia 7.0% vs 3.3%.
  • Reperfusion achieved in 75.1% (MeVO-eTICI 2b/2c/3) — but didn't translate to benefit.
  • Longer workflow than LVO trials: onset-to-recanalization 359 min (vs 241 min in ESCAPE-LVO).
  • 15% of EVT patients had spontaneous recanalization before angiography (82% had IV tPA).
  • MeVO defined: M2/M3, A2/A3, P2/P3 segments. MCA branch occlusion in 84.7%.
  • Contradicts prior observational data suggesting EVT benefit for MeVO — selection bias likely.
  • Does not support routine EVT for MeVO at current workflow speeds.
  • 529 patients (255 EVT, 274 UC), 58 sites, 5 countries (Canada, US, Germany, Hungary, Japan). PROBE design.

Design

Study Type: Multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment

Randomization: 1

Blinding: Open-label with blinded outcome adjudication

Enrollment Period: April 2022 – June 2024

Follow-up Duration: 90 days

Countries: Canada, Germany, Spain, South Korea, Australia

Sample Size: 530

Analysis: Modified intention-to-treat; adjusted analyses with generalized linear models and Cox regression


Inclusion Criteria

  • Age ≥18 years
  • Acute ischemic stroke with medium-vessel occlusion (e.g., M2, M3, A2, A3, or P2, P3 segments)
  • Last known well within 12 hours
  • Favorable baseline imaging (ASPECTS ≥6 or equivalent)

Exclusion Criteria

  • Large-vessel occlusion
  • Severe disability (pre-stroke mRS >2)
  • Large core infarct or extensive early ischemic changes
  • Contraindications to thrombectomy or usual care

Arms

FieldEVT + Usual CareControl
InterventionEndovascular thrombectomy with adjunctive medical careStandard medical therapy (including IV thrombolysis when indicated)
DurationSingle intervention; follow-up at 90 daysFollow-up at 90 days

Outcomes

OutcomeTypeControlInterventionHR / OR / RRP-value
Proportion of patients with modified Rankin Scale score 0 or 1 at 90 daysPrimary43.1%41.6%1.50%0.61
Secondary8.4%13.3%1.82
Symptomatic ICHAdverse2.2%5.4%

Subgroup Analysis

No major subgroup showed benefit of EVT over usual care; consistent findings across strata


Criticisms

  • Open-label design may introduce performance bias
  • Study may be underpowered to detect small treatment effects
  • Baseline core volumes and vessel segment distributions not stratified
  • Unclear generalizability to lower-resource settings or different imaging protocols

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Medtronic

Based on: ESCAPE-MeVO (New England Journal of Medicine, 2025)

Authors: M. Goyal, J. M. Ospel, A. Ganesh, ..., M.A. Mühlenbruch

Citation: N Engl J Med 2025; DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2411668

Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.