What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to assess the prevalence and clinical consequences of the no-reflow phenomenon in acute ischemic stroke patients who underwent endovascular therapy.

January 22, 2026Open Access

Association between the no-reflow phenomenon and clinical outcomes after endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Key Points

This research aims to assess the prevalence and clinical consequences of the no-reflow phenomenon in acute ischemic stroke patients who underwent endovascular therapy.
Conducted systematic review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies
Searched databases including PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL
Evaluated outcomes such as no-reflow prevalence, functional outcomes, and mortality
Used random-effects meta-analysis to calculate pooled risk ratios and mean differences
Pooled no-reflow prevalence was 20.5% among the studied patients
Patients with no-reflow had reduced early neurological recovery (RR 0.76)
Increased risk of hemorrhagic transformation (RR 1.82) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR 1.88)
No significant differences in functional independence and mortality were found

Abstract

Abstract Background The no-reflow phenomenon, characterized by impaired microvascular reperfusion despite successful macrovascular recanalization, has been identified as a potential contributor to poor outcomes in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treated with endovascular therapy (EVT). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the prevalence and clinical impact of no-reflow phenomenon in AIS patients undergoing EVT. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the no-reflow phenomenon after EVT. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL (inception to February 9, 2025). Outcomes included no-reflow prevalence, functional outcomes (mRS), early neurological recovery, infarct volume, hemorrhagic complications, and 90-day mortality. Pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed with I2. Results Eight studies (n = 1483 patients) were included. The pooled prevalence of no-reflow was 20.5% (95% CI 6.2%–49.9%; I2 = 96.9%). Compared with controls, patients with no-reflow had reduced early neurological recovery (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64–0.90) and increased risk of hemorrhagic transformation (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.18–2.79) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.00–3.56). Differences in functional independence (mRS 0–2) and mortality were not statistically significant. Subgroup analyses based on study design revealed divergent patterns, particularly for infarct volume, which was significantly greater in no-reflow patients in post-hoc RCTs but not in the overall analysis. Conclusion No-reflow affects one in five EVT-treated patients and is associated with adverse neurological and hemorrhagic outcomes. Findings highlight the need for standardized definitions and prospective trials to clarify its clinical impact.

Association between the no-reflow phenomenon and clinical outcomes after endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Key Points

Abstract

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider