Thrombectomy outcomes for acute stroke patients with anterior circulation tandem lesions: a clinical registry and an update of a systematic review with meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although mechanical thrombectomy (MT) appears to be superior in stroke patients with extracranial carotid disease (ECD) compared to thrombolysis alone, the impact of emergent carotid stenting during MT remains unclear. The MT outcomes were assessed in anterior stroke patients with ECD, especially when combined with carotid stenting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of our registry was performed and an update of a systematic review and meta-analysis of MT studies with or without stenting for anterior circulation stroke with ECD published between November 2010 and April 2017 was conducted. RESULTS: In our registry, 46 patients with ECD underwent MT. In the meta-analysis including 13 primary studies plus our prospective registry data (590 patients in total), the successful reperfusion rate (modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score ≥2b) reached 75% [95% confidence interval (CI) 69%-81%]. The rate of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) was 8% (95% CI 6%-11%), 90-day favourable outcome was achieved in 50% (95% CI 42%-59%) and mortality rate was 16% (95% CI 11%-22%). When using carotid stenting, rates of successful reperfusion, sICH, 90-day favourable outcome and mortality were 80% (95% CI 73%-87%), 7% (95% CI 4%-12%), 53% (95% CI 43%-62%) and 14% (95% CI 9%-19%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data report an association between acute stenting and successful reperfusion rates in stroke patients with tandem lesion treated with MT. Further studies are warranted to determine the intracranial bleeding risk after MT and stenting according to the antiplatelet therapy.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".