The susceptibility vessel sign (SVS) on MRI has been linked to functional outcomes and reperfusion success after endovascular treatment (EVT), suggesting its potential as a prognostic marker. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the prognostic and etiological significance of SVS in acute ischemic stroke (AIS).
Methods
We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane in May 2025. Eligible studies included post-hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of AIS patients treated with EVT and/or intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Primary outcome was successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3). Secondary outcomes included functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0–2), mortality, stroke etiology, and time metrics.
Results
Eighteen studies (n = 2602) were included. Overall, SVS was not associated with higher reperfusion rates (12 studies; n = 2083; RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.93–1.10; p = .832; I2 = 56.0%), except in the SWI subgroup (2 studies; RR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.02–1.34; p = .022; I2 = 0.0%). SVS+ was linked to lower 90-day mortality in anterior circulation strokes (3 studies; n = 865; RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.36–0.74; p < .001; I2 = 0%), improved 90-day functional independence in Western populations (7 studies; n = 1481; RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.01–1.47, p = .039; I2 = 37.7%), and in cardioembolic stroke etiology using GRE (9 studies; n = 1058; RR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.05–1.57; p = .014; I2 = 36.3%). The mean time from onset to treatment was 238.19 minutes ± 147.5.
Conclusions
Although SVS+ did not predict reperfusion, it was associated with better functional outcomes in Western populations, particularly in cardioembolic stroke, and lower mortality, thereby reinforcing its prognostic value. MRI protocols did not delay treatment, but high heterogeneity limits certainty, highlighting the need for prospective studies.
AbbasiMHDulaANWarachSJ, et al.Association between MR‐Based thrombus imaging characteristics and endovascular therapy outcome in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Stroke Vasc Interv Neurol2024; 4: e001142.
2.
KoHCRyuC-WYunSJ, et al.Characteristic signs on T2*-Based imaging and their relationship with results of reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and evidence to date. Neurointervention2018; 13: 90–99.
3.
BelachewNFDobrockyTAlemanEB, et al.SWI susceptibility vessel sign in patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. Am J Neuroradiol2021; 42: 1949–1955.
4.
DillmannMBonnetLVuillierF, et al.Factors that influence susceptibility vessel sign in patients with acute stroke referred for mechanical thrombectomy. Front Neurol2022; 13: 893060.
5.
ThraceIBourcierRDerrazI, et al.Susceptibility vessel sign and cardioembolic etiology in the THRACE trial. Clin Neuroradiol2019; 29: 685–692.
6.
ChoK-HKimJSKwonSU, et al.Significance of susceptibility vessel sign on T2*-Weighted gradient echo imaging for identification of stroke subtypes. Stroke2005; 36: 2379–2383.
7.
AbdelradyMDerrazILefevreP-H, et al.Negative susceptibility vessel sign might be predictive of complete reperfusion in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion managed with thrombectomy. Eur Radiol2022; 33: 2593–2604.
8.
LiuMLiLLiG. The different clinical value of susceptibility vessel sign in acute ischemic stroke patients under different interventional therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci2019; 62: 72–79.
9.
TangSZSenJGohYG, et al.Susceptibility vessel sign as a predictor for recanalization and clinical outcome in acute ischaemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci2021; 94: 159–165.
10.
BeyelerMRohnerRIjäsP, et al.Susceptibility vessel sign and intravenous alteplase in stroke patients treated with thrombectomy: a secondary analysis of the SWIFT DIRECT trial. Clin Neuroradiol2025; 35: 483–493.
11.
YoshidaSFujimotoMShimizuK, et al.Stent retriever deployment tracing susceptibility vessel sign in the M2 branch predicts the effective first-pass reperfusion in thrombectomy for M1 occlusion. World Neurosurg2024; 187: e485–493.
12.
AdamsHPBendixenBHKappelleLJ, et al.Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke. Definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. TOAST. Trial of org 10172 in acute stroke treatment. Stroke1993; 24: 35–41.
13.
ChungJParkSHKimN, et al.Trial of ORG 10172 in acute stroke treatment (TOAST) classification and vascular territory of ischemic stroke lesions diagnosed by diffusion‐weighted imaging. J Am Heart Assoc2014; 3: 001119.
14.
KangD-WJeongH-GKimDY, et al.Prediction of stroke subtype and recanalization using susceptibility vessel sign on susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Stroke2017; 48: 1554–1559.
15.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J2009; 339: b2535.
16.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J2021; 372: n71.
17.
HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane, 2024. Available from: https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. version 6.5(updated August 2024).
18.
HackeWKasteMBluhmkiE, et al.Thrombolysis with alteplase 3 to 4.5 hours after acute Ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med2008; 359: 1317–1329.
19.
RockliffeL. Including non‐english language articles in systematic reviews: a reflection on processes for identifying low‐cost sources of translation support. Res Synth Methods2022; 13: 2–5.
20.
BalkEMChungMChenML, et al.Data extraction from machine-translated versus original language randomized trial reports: a comparative study. Syst Rev2013; 2: 97.
21.
OuzzaniMHammadyHFedorowiczZ, et al.Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev2016; 5: 210.
22.
HaddawayNRPageMJPritchardCC, et al.PRISMA2020: an R package and shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and open synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev2022; 18: e1230.
23.
StangA. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol2010; 25: 603–605.
24.
SchünemannHBrożekJGuyattG, et al. (eds). GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. The GRADE Working Group, 2013. Available from guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook.Updated October 2013.
25.
McMaster UniversityEvidencePrime.GRADEpro guideline development tool [Software]. McMaster University and Evidence Prime. 2025. Available fromhttps://gradepro.org
26.
LuoDWanXLiuJ, et al.Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res2018; 27: 1785–1805.
27.
WanXWangWLiuJ, et al.Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol2014; 14: 135.
28.
IntHoutJIoannidisJPARoversMM, et al.Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open2016; 6: e010247.
29.
LanganDHigginsJPTJacksonD, et al.A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods2019; 10(1): 83–98.
30.
ViechtbauerW. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the meta for package. J Stat Software2010; 36: 036.i03.
31.
BalduzziSRückerGSchwarzerG. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Base Ment Health2019; 22: 153–160.
32.
SchwarzerG. Meta: general package for meta-analysis. Journal of Statistical Software2006; 8(1): 1–2.
33.
HarrerMCuijpersPFurukawaTA, et al.Doing meta-analysis with R: a Hands-On guide. 1st ed.Boca Raton, FL and London: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 2021.
34.
EggerMDavey SmithGSchneiderM, et al.Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J1997; 315: 629–634.
35.
SterneJACSuttonAJIoannidisJPA, et al.Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Br Med J2011; 343: d4002.
36.
BourcierRMazighiMLabreucheJ, et al.Susceptibility vessel sign in the ASTER trial: higher recanalization rate and more favourable clinical outcome after first line stent retriever compared to contact aspiration. J Stroke2018; 20: 416–476.
37.
AokiJKimuraKShibazakiK, et al.The susceptibility vessel sign at the proximal M1: a strong predictor for poor outcome after intravenous thrombolysis. J Neurol Sci2015; 348: 195–200.
38.
FarghaliAHanssMBerthillerJ, et al.Fibrinogen and von Willebrand Factor and Susceptibility Vessel Sign on T2*-Weighted Gradient Echo Imaging. Eur Neurol2014; 72: 375–377.
39.
RitzenthalerTLacalmAChoT, et al.Sequential MR assessment of the susceptibility vessel sign and arterial occlusion in acute stroke. J Neuroimaging2016; 26: 355–359.
40.
YanSLiuKTongL, et al.Different risk factors for poor outcome between patients with positive and negative susceptibility vessel sign. J Neurointerventional Surg2016; 8: 1001–1005.
41.
KimSKYoonWHeoTW, et al.Negative susceptibility vessel sign and underlying intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis in acute middle cerebral artery occlusion. Am J Neuroradiol2015; 36: 1266–1297.
42.
DarcourtJGarciaCPhuongDM, et al.Absence of susceptibility vessel sign is associated with aspiration-resistant fibrin/platelet-rich thrombi. Int J Stroke2021; 16: 972–980.
43.
HsuCC-TKwanGNCHapugodaS, et al.Susceptibility weighted imaging in acute cerebral ischemia: review of emerging technical concepts and clinical applications. NeuroRadiol J2017; 30: 109–119.
44.
ParkM-GOhS-JBaikSK, et al.Susceptibility-weighted imaging for detection of thrombus in acute cardioembolic stroke. J Stroke2016; 18: 73–79.
45.
PhuyalSPaudelSChhetriST, et al.Susceptibility weighted imaging for detection of thrombus in acute ischemic stroke: a cross‐sectional study. Health Sci Rep2024; 7: e2285.
46.
Kolominsky-RabasPLWeberMGefellerO, et al.Epidemiology of ischemic stroke subtypes according to TOAST criteria: incidence, recurrence, and long-term survival in ischemic stroke subtypes: a population-based study. Stroke2001; 32: 2735–2740.
SaverJLGoyalMVan Der LugtA, et al.Time to treatment with endovascular thrombectomy and outcomes from ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis. JAMA2016; 316: 1279–1288.
49.
GoyalMMenonBKVan ZwamWH, et al.Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Lancet2016; 387: 1723–1731.
50.
BracardSDucrocqXMasJL, et al.Mechanical thrombectomy after intravenous alteplase versus alteplase alone after stroke (THRACE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol2016; 15: 1138–1147.
51.
FladtJKaesmacherJMeinelTR, et al.MRI vs CT for baseline imaging evaluation in acute large artery ischemic stroke: a subanalysis of the SWIFT-DIRECT trial. Neurology2024; 102: e207922.
52.
RapilloCMDunetVPistocchiS, et al.Moving from CT to MRI paradigm in acute ischemic stroke: feasibility, effects on stroke diagnosis and long-term outcomes. Stroke2024; 55: 1329–1338.
53.
VagalASabaL. Artificial intelligence in “Code Stroke”—A paradigm shift: do radiologists need to change their practice?Radiol Artif Intell2022; 4: e210204.
54.
MouridsenKThurnerPZaharchukG. Artificial intelligence applications in stroke. Stroke2020; 51: 2573–2579.
55.
AbdelgawadEAAminMFAbdellatifA, et al.Value of susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) in assessment of intra-arterial thrombus in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med2021; 52: 270.
56.
IkawaHOkamotoSShinoharaN, et al.Usefulness of the preoperative images supporting mechanical thrombectomy based on susceptibility-weighted image for stroke. J Neuroendovasc Ther2023; 17: 202–208.
57.
FrumentoPGimelliA. Understanding statistical analysis in randomized trials: tips and tricks for effective review. Eur Heart J Imaging Methods Pract2025; 3: qyaf036.
58.
LinfanteIStarosciakAKWalkerGR, et al.Predictors of poor outcome despite recanalization: a multiple regression analysis of the NASA registry. J Neurointerventional Surg2016; 8: 224–229.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
