Intravenous alteplase has different effects on the efficacy of aspiration and stent retriever thrombectomy: analysis of the COMPASS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on the utility of intravenous (IV) alteplase in patients with emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) treated with mechanical thrombectomy (MT). METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the COMPASS: a trial of aspiration thrombectomy versus stent retriever thrombectomy as first-line approach for large vessel occlusion. We compared clinical, procedural and angiographic outcomes of patients with and without prior IV alteplase administration. RESULTS: In the COMPASS trial, 235 patients had presented to the hospital within the first 4 hours of stroke symptom onset and were eligible for analysis. On univariate analysis, administration of IV alteplase prior to MT was found to be significantly associated with favorable outcomes (modified Rankin scale (mRS) 0-2 at 3 months; 55.6% vs 40.0% in the MT-only group, P=0.037). However, on multivariate analysis, only baseline (pre-stroke) mRS, admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and age were identified as independent predictors of favorable outcomes at 3 months. We found higher final thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b/3 rates in patients without the use of alteplase prior to the aspiration first approach (100.0% vs 87.9% in IV altepase +aspiration first MT, P=0.03). In the stent retriever first group, final TICI 2b/3 rates were identical in patients with and without IV alteplase administration (87.5% and 87.5%, P=1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Prior administration of IV alteplase may adversely affect the efficacy of aspiration, but does not seem to influence the stent retriever first approach to MT in patients with anterior circulation ELVO.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".