Background: Two early basilar artery occlusion (BAO) randomized controlled trials did not establish superiority of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) over medical management. While many providers continue to recommend EVT for acute BAO, perceptions of equipoise in randomizing patients with BAO to medical management may differ between clinician specialties. Methods: We conducted an international survey (1/1/22-3/31/22) regarding management strategies in acute BAO prior to the announcement of 2 trials indicating superiority of EVT, and compared responses between interventionalists (INT) and non-interventionalists (nINT). Selection practices for routine EVT based on neuroimaging and clinical features were compared between the two groups using descriptive statistics. Results: Among the 1245 respondents (nINT=702), INT more commonly believed that EVT was superior to medical management in acute BAO (98.5% vs. 95.1%, p<0.01). A similar proportion of INT and nINT responded that they would not randomize a patient with BAO to EVT (29.4% vs. 26.7%), or that they would only under specific circumstances (p=0.45). Among respondents who would recommend EVT, there was no difference in the maximum pre-stroke disability, minimum stroke severity, or infarct burden on computed tomography between the two groups (p>0.05), although nINT more commonly preferred perfusion imaging (24.2% vs. 19.7%, p=0.04). Among respondents who indicated they would randomize to medical management, INT were more likely to randomize when the NIHSS was ≥10 (15.9% vs. 6.9%, p<0.01). Conclusions: Following the publication of two neutral clinical trials in BAO EVT, most stroke providers believed EVT to be superior to medical management in carefully selected patients, with most indicating they would not randomize a patient to medical treatment. There were small differences in preference of advanced neuroimaging, although these preferences were unsupported by clinical trial data.