First Line Thrombectomy Devices in Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease: An analysis of the RESCUE-ICAS registry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Managing atherosclerotic large vessel occlusion is procedurally challenging. Prior literature pertaining to technical considerations remain heterogenous and further research is necessary to highlight important differences. As such, first-line thrombectomy technique remains an active area of debate with respect to rate of recanalization, need for rescue stenting, and hemorrhagic complications. Methods This is a pre-planned analysis of the prospective RESCUE-ICAS registry which included atherosclerotic large vessel occlusions treated with mechanical thrombectomy from 25 sites. Patients were excluded if they had missing data on first-line technique or primary outcomes. Patients were dichotomized into two cohorts based on whether their first-line thrombectomy technique was with aspiration alone or a stentriever (SR). Primary procedural outcome was first-pass effect while primary safety outcome was mortality at 90 days. Propensity score matching and inverse probability weighted analysis were performed with respect to primary and secondary outcomes. Results 419 were patients included in this analysis with 266 and 153 patients in the aspiration and stentriever cohorts, respectively. The cohort’s mean age was 68 (SD ±13) years, and the majority of patients were white (59%) and male (62%). There were no significant baseline demographic differences between cohorts; however, ICA occlusions were more common in the stentriever cohort (52% vs 31%), while MCA occlusions were more frequent in the aspiration cohort (35% vs 15%). In the un-adjusted model, first pass effect was higher in stentriever versus aspiration (35.3% vs 23.7%, p = 0.01) with equivalent mortality rates (31% vs 26%, p = 0.31). Distal embolization rates were higher in the aspiration cohort (9.8% vs 3.9%, p = 0.03), yet aspiration was associated with lower composited procedural complications (6% vs 11%, p = 0.01). Propensity score matching and weighted analysis demonstrated that differences in primary clinical efficacy and safety outcomes were insignificant between cohorts. Conclusion In patients with atherosclerotic large vessel occlusions, first line stentriever utilization was associated with higher first-pass effect rates, lower rates of distal embolization and shorter procedural length compared to aspiration. However, no clinical outcome difference was appreciated between the two groups and aspiration was associated with lower complication rates.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».