Bridging Thrombolysis and ASPECTS in Patients With Stroke Treated With Endovascular Thrombectomy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background In patients with stroke with large‐vessel occlusion and extensive ischemic change denoted by low Alberta Stroke Programme Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), the role of bridging thrombolysis before endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is still to be determined. We aimed to examine the impact of ischemic change on clinical outcomes and how this is modified by bridging thrombolysis in patients treated with EVT. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing anterior circulation EVT from a prospectively collected registry were included in this retrospective analysis. ASPECTS was evaluated from baseline noncontrast computed tomography scans with lower scores indicating larger areas of ischemic change. Outcome measures included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score, 0–2) at day 90. Multivariable logistic regression models with interaction terms between ASPECTS and bridging thrombolysis were created. ASPECTS was treated as numeric variable in the primary analysis and trichotomized (ASPECTS ≤5, 6–8, 9–10) in a sensitivity analysis. Results A total of 872 patients undergoing EVT (384 women, mean±SD age of 67±15, baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale 16 [interquartile range, 11–20]) were included. A total of 549 (63%) patients were transferred from primary stroke centers for EVT and 436 (50%) received bridging intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase. On baseline computed tomography scan, median [interquartile range] ASPECTS was 8 [7–9], with 408 (47%) having minimal (ASPECTS 9–10), 376 (43%) moderate (ASPECTS 6–8), and 88 (10%) extensive (ASPECTS ≤5) ischemic change. With decreasing numeric ASPECTS, the probability of functional independence reduced (ASPECTS main effect adjusted odds ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.23–1.52]; P <0.001), but this was attenuated in those with bridging thrombolysis (interaction P =0.046). This interaction was significant for patients transferred to the EVT center after thrombolysis (interaction P =0.03) but not for patients presenting directly to the EVT center (interaction P =0.46). The interaction between ASPECTS and bridging thrombolysis was not significant when ASPECTS was split into the 3 categories ( P =0.35). Conclusion In a cohort of patients undergoing EVT where most were transferred from a primary stroke center, ischemic change was associated with decreased probability functional independence, but this effect was attenuated with bridging thrombolysis. These results suggest that patients with large areas of ischemic change may still benefit from the earliest possible reperfusion afforded by bridging thrombolysis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».