Evaluation of stroke thrombectomy including patients where IV thrombolysis is contraindicated or has failed: a randomized trial of two novel thrombectomy devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Study was a PROBE design phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT). We assessed trial feasibility and technical efficacy and safety of two novel thrombectomy devices - ERIC (a retriever device) and SOFIA (a distal access catheter) - used alone or in combination depending on operator preference. METHODS: Four UK neuroscience centers enrolled adults with proximal large artery occlusion (LAO) stroke on imaging where arterial puncture was achievable within 5.5 hours (8.5 hours for posterior circulation) of symptom onset; National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥6 with limited ischemic change on CT imaging. Randomization was 2:1 into intervention arm (ERIC and/or SOFIA). Patients and core lab were blinded to allocation. Primary outcome was independent core lab adjudication of reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) scale). Secondary outcomes were modified Rankin score (mRS) at 90 and 365 days (independence and shift analysis), 30-day mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), procedural complications and NIHSS change. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were enrolled. TICI 2B/3 reperfusion was achieved in 72% in intervention compared with 90% in control arm on intention to treat (ITT) analysis (P=0.2) and 78% compared with 86% on per protocol analysis (P=0.7). Functional independence at 90 days was 40% (intervention) compared with 43% (control) on ITT analysis (P=1.0). sICH rates were low at 0% and 5%, respectively (P=0.3). The 30-day mortality was 9% intervention compared with 14% control (P=0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Study indicated feasibility of a phase II RCT trial approach for assessing new thrombectomy devices. In a broad LAO stroke population ERIC and SOFIA were not statistically different from control devices. Larger trials are needed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".