A Meta-Analysis of Observational Intra-Arterial Stroke Therapy Studies Using the Merci Device, Penumbra System, and Retrievable Stents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The time from arterial puncture to successful recanalization is an important milestone toward timely recanalization. With the significant improvement in recanalization rates by using thrombectomy devices, procedural time to recanalization is becoming a determinant factor in choosing among available devices. We aimed to assess the impact of time to recanalization on the outcome of intra-arterial stroke therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies reporting procedural times in patients with stroke treated with the MD, PS, and RS. RESULTS: We identified 16 eligible studies: 4 on the MD (n = 357), 8 on the PS (n = 455), and 4 on RS (n = 113). Merci device studies described total procedural duration, while PS and RS studies described puncture-to-recanalization times. With a random-effects model, mean procedural duration for the MD was 120 minutes (95% CI, 105.7-134.2 minutes). Mean puncture to recanalization time for the PS was 64.6 minutes (95% CI, 44.4-84.8 minutes) and 54.7 minutes for RS (95% CI, 47.3-62.2 minutes). Successful recanalization was achieved in 211 of 357 patients (59.1%) in the MD studies (95% CI, 49.3-77.7), 394 of 455 (86.6%) in the PS studies (95% CI, 84.1-93.8), and 105 of 113 (92.9%) in the RS studies (95% CI, 90.9-99.9). Functional independence (mRS ≤2) was achieved in 31.5% of patients in the MD studies, 36.6% in the PS studies, and 46.9% in the RS studies. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the PS and RS was associated with comparable procedural time to recanalization. Available data did not allow this parameter to be determined for trials using the MD. Retrievable stents achieved the highest rate of successful recanalization and functional outcome and the lowest mortality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".