Abstract 201: Effect of Endovascular Reperfusion in Relation to Site of Arterial Occlusion: A Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have shown an association between reperfusion and good clinical outcome, but it is unknown if this association differs depending on the site of the arterial occlusive lesion (AOL). We pooled individual patient data from prospective endovascular stroke studies to assess this. Methods: We included data from the endovascular arm of IMS III, a trial of intravenous (IV) thrombolysis alone versus IV thrombolysis and endovascular treatment; SWIFT, a trial comparing the Solitaire with the Merci device; STAR, a cohort study of patients treated with the Solitaire device; and DEFUSE 2, a cohort study of patients who received endovascular therapy. We compared the strength of the associations between reperfusion and clinical outcomes in patients with ICA, M1 and M2/3/4 (M2+) occlusions. The primary outcome was good functional outcome at day 90 defined as a modified Rankin Scale 0-2. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Results: 710 Patients were included in the analysis. The site of the AOL was ICA in 161, M1 in 389, and M2+ in 160 patients (M2=131, M3=23 and M4=6). The association between reperfusion and good functional outcome was stronger for patients with ICA occlusions (45% vs 19%; OR 3.5, 95%CI 1.7-7.2) and M1 occlusions (58% vs 18%; OR 6.2, 95%CI 3.8-10.2) than for patients with M2+ occlusions (53% vs 45%; OR 1.4, 95%CI 0.8-2.6) (p for difference in ORs=0.003). Mortality was reduced with reperfusion in patients with ICA (39% vs 18%; OR 0.4, 95%CI 0.2-0.7) and M1 occlusions (30% vs 10%; OR 0.3, 95%CI 0.2-0.5), but not in patients with M2+ occlusions (15% vs 15%; OR 1.0, 95%CI 0.4-2.3). Reperfusion was associated with fewer incidences of sICH without evidence of an interaction with AOL (OR 0.3, 95%CI 0.2-0.6). Conclusion: The association between endovascular reperfusion and improved clinical outcomes is more profound in patients with ICA and M1 occlusions than in patients with M2+ occlusions. This differential response to reperfusion has important implications for the design and power calculations of endovascular stroke trials.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".