Impact of Prior Antiplatelet Therapy on Outcomes After Endovascular Therapy for Acute Stroke: Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke Registry Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: The influence of prior antiplatelet therapy (APT) uses on the outcomes of patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with endovascular therapy is unclear. We compared procedural and clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy in patients on APT or not before stroke onset. Methods: We analyzed 2 groups from the ongoing prospective multicenter Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke registry in France: patients on prior APT (APT+) and patients without prior APT (APT−) treated by endovascular therapy, with and without intravenous thrombolysis. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic models including center as random effect were used to compare angiographic (rates of reperfusion at the end of procedure, procedural complications) and clinical (favorable and excellent outcome, 90-day all-cause mortality, and hemorrhagic complications) outcomes according to APT subgroups. Comparisons were adjusted for prespecified confounders (age, admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, intravenous thrombolysis, and time from onset to puncture), as well as for meaningful baseline between-group differences. Results: A total of 2939 patients were analyzed, of whom 877 (29.8%) were on prior APT. Patients with prior APT were older, had more frequent vascular risk factors, cardioembolic stroke mechanism, and prestroke disability. Rates of complete reperfusion (37.9% in the APT− group versus 42.7 % in the APT+ group; aOR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.88–1.34]; P =0.41) and periprocedural complication (16.9% versus 13.3%; aOR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.7–1.2]; P =0.66) did not differ between the two groups. Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (aOR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.63–1.37]; P =0.73), 3 months favorable clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2; aOR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.77–1.25]; P =0.89), and mortality (aOR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.72–1.26]; P =0.76) at 90 days did not differ between the groups. Conclusions: Prior APT does not influence angiographic and functional outcomes following endovascular therapy and should not be taken into account for acute revascularization strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".