Intravenous thrombolysis prior to mechanical thrombectomy in large vessel occlusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The substantial clinical improvement in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy (MT), combined with the poor response of proximal intracranial occlusions to intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), led to questions regarding the utility of bridging therapy (BT; IVT followed by MT) compared to direct mechanical thrombectomy (dMT) for AIS patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO). METHODS: We aimed to investigate the comparative safety and efficacy of BT and dMT in AIS patients. We included all observational studies and post hoc analyses from randomized controlled clinical trials that provided data on the outcomes of AIS patients with LVO stratified by IVT treatment status prior to MT. RESULTS: We identified 38 eligible observational studies (11,798 LVO patients, mean age = 68 years, 56% treated with BT). In unadjusted analyses, BT was associated with a higher likelihood of 3-month functional independence (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.32-1.76), 3-month functional improvement (common OR [cOR] for 1-point decrease in modified Rankin Scale score = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.18-1.97), early neurological improvement (OR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.83-1.76), successful recanalization (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.02-1.46), and successful recanalization with ≤2 device passes (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.43-3.64) compared to dMT. BT was also related to a lower likelihood of 3-month mortality (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.57-0.73). In the adjusted analyses, BT was independently associated with a higher likelihood of 3-month functional independence (adjusted OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.26-1.91) and lower odds of 3-month mortality (adjusted OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66-0.97) compared to dMT. The two groups did not differ in functional improvement (adjusted cOR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.89-1.74) or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.61-1.25). INTERPRETATION: BT appears to be associated with improved functional independence without evidence for safety concerns, compared to dMT, for AIS patients with LVO. ANN NEUROL 2019;86:395-406.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".