Rebeca Aragon Garcia
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Rebeca Aragon Garcia has a total of 18 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Achala Vagal
University of Cincinnati
1 shared publication - Cora Reinhart
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, OH (C.R.).
1 shared publication - Eva A. Mistry
Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, OH
1 shared publication - Felix Guerra Castanon
Department of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham (F.G.C.).
1 shared publication - Guy L. Reed
Translational Cardiovascular Research Center, Department of Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
1 shared publication - James Ernest Siegler
Department of Neurology, University of Chicago, IL (J.E.S.).
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 January 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
- Vol. 6 (1)
Neurointerventional Practice Change Following Distal Medium Vessel Occlusion Randomized Controlled Trials: A Survey
BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials showed no benefit of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for ischemic stroke due to distal medium vessel occlusion (DMVO). We sought to understand the use of MT for DMVO stroke treatment before and after the publication of these trials. METHODS: We conducted an email survey of 47 comprehensive stroke centers across the United States, which are participating in a National Institutes of Health–funded randomized controlled trial (RCT; Unique identifier: NCT05948566). The questionnaire was developed and modified with expert feedback. Site principal investigators were asked to discuss the DMVO RCT results with their local clinical teams and to subsequently respond to survey questions in a manner that reflected team-based decision-making regarding MT for DMVO before and after the publication of the RCTs, considering the location of the vessel occlusion (nondominant M2 versus M3/M4/A1/A2). If the site principal investigator was responsible for >1 site with the same stroke team, only 1 survey response was tallied. RESULTS: Of the 43 site principal investigators surveyed representing 47 unique sites, 40 (93%) representing 44 unique sites completed the survey. Before the DMVO RCTs, 95% of respondents were treating nondominant M2 occlusions with MT. Only 15% will continue to be treated with MT, while 57.5% said that treatment was dependent on at least ≥1 variable following presentation of the DMVO RCTs. For all other anterior circulation DMVOs, 50% were treating DMVOs with MT before RCT results’ presentation. Only 7.5% will continue to treat with MT, while 32.5% said that treatment was dependent on at least 1 other variable following presentation of the DMVO RCTs. The most common variable named by survey respondents as important to treatment decision was symptom severity. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey of comprehensive stroke centers, the DMVO RCT results created a significant practice change in how stroke teams approach anterior circulation DMVO stroke with MT.
- 1 January 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
- Vol. 6 (1)
Open AccessNeurointerventional Practice Change Following Distal Medium Vessel Occlusion Randomized Controlled Trials: A Survey
BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials showed no benefit of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for ischemic stroke due to distal medium vessel occlusion (DMVO). We sought to understand the use of MT for DMVO stroke treatment before and after the publication of these trials. METHODS: We conducted an email survey of 47 comprehensive stroke centers across the United States, which are participating in a National Institutes of Health–funded randomized controlled trial (RCT; Unique identifier: NCT05948566). The questionnaire was developed and modified with expert feedback. Site principal investigators were asked to discuss the DMVO RCT results with their local clinical teams and to subsequently respond to survey questions in a manner that reflected team-based decision-making regarding MT for DMVO before and after the publication of the RCTs, considering the location of the vessel occlusion (nondominant M2 versus M3/M4/A1/A2). If the site principal investigator was responsible for >1 site with the same stroke team, only 1 survey response was tallied. RESULTS: Of the 43 site principal investigators surveyed representing 47 unique sites, 40 (93%) representing 44 unique sites completed the survey. Before the DMVO RCTs, 95% of respondents were treating nondominant M2 occlusions with MT. Only 15% will continue to be treated with MT, while 57.5% said that treatment was dependent on at least ≥1 variable following presentation of the DMVO RCTs. For all other anterior circulation DMVOs, 50% were treating DMVOs with MT before RCT results’ presentation. Only 7.5% will continue to treat with MT, while 32.5% said that treatment was dependent on at least 1 other variable following presentation of the DMVO RCTs. The most common variable named by survey respondents as important to treatment decision was symptom severity. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey of comprehensive stroke centers, the DMVO RCT results created a significant practice change in how stroke teams approach anterior circulation DMVO stroke with MT.