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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".