Early Endovascular Treatment in Intravenous Tissue Plasminogen Activator–Ineligible Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) treatment in acute stroke has many exclusion criteria. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of endovascular therapy (ET) in intravenous (IV) tPA-ineligible patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients treated with ET within 6 hours of stroke onset between September 2010 and April 2015. Patients treated with IV-tPA followed by ET were compared with those treated with ET alone because of IV-tPA ineligibility. Efficacy and safety end points included the rates of good outcome (90-day modified Rankin scale score ≤2), successful reperfusion (modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia 2b-3), parenchymal hematoma (PH-1 and PH-2), and 90-day mortality. Univariate and logistic regression were performed to identify the predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 422 patients were included. Two hundred and fifty-three (59%) patients received IV-tPA+ET, and 169 (41%), ET alone. Combined IV-tPA+ET patients were slightly younger (64.9±15.2 versus 67.9±14.9 years; P=0.05), more often males (56% versus 44%; P=0.01), and had less hypertension (70% versus 81%; P=0.02) and vertebrobasilar occlusions (3% versus 8%; P=0.02). The remaining baseline characteristics, including National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (20 [15-23] versus 19 [15-24]; P=0.85), Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS; 8 [7-9] versus 8 [7-9]; P=0.24), and stroke onset to puncture times (235±70 versus 240±81 minutes; P=0.27), were similar across both groups. There were no significant differences in the rates of modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia 2b-3 (83% versus 80%; P=0.52), 90-day modified Rankin scale score ≤2 (45% versus 38%; P=0.21), or any PH (3% versus 5%; P=0.21). Unadjusted 90-day mortality was higher with ET alone (21% versus 34%; P<0.01); however, IV-tPA ineligibility was not associated with modified Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia 2b-3, any PH, good outcome, or 90-day mortality on logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: IV-tPA-eligible and -ineligible patients seem to have similar outcomes after early ET.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".