Stent-retriever alone versus combined use of stent-retriever and contact aspiration technique for middle cerebral artery M2 occlusions: a propensity score analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal endovascular treatment (EVT) technique for middle cerebral artery (MCA) M2 segment occlusions remains unknown. We aim to analyze whether reperfusion rate, procedure times, procedure-related complications, and clinical outcome differed between patients with isolated M2 occlusions who underwent stent-retriever (SR) alone versus combined SR and contact aspiration (CA) as a front-line EVT. METHODS: Patients who underwent EVT for isolated MCA-M2 occlusion were recruited from the prospectively ongoing ROSSETTI registry. Patients were divided regarding the EVT approach into SR alone versus SR+CA and propensity score matching was used to achieve baseline balance. Demographic, procedural, safety, and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of first-pass effect (FPE) and 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS) 0-2. RESULTS: 214 patients underwent EVT for M2 occlusion, 125 treated with SR alone and 89 with SR+CA. Propensity score matchnig analysis selected 134 matched patients. The rates of FPE (42% vs 40%, p=1.000) and 90-day mRS 0-2 (60% vs 51%, p=0.281) were comparable between groups. Patients treated with SR alone had lower need of rescue therapy (p=0.006), faster times to reperfusion (p<0.001), and lower procedure-related complications (p=0.031). Higher initial Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score was an independent predictor of FPE. Age, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and procedure duration were significant predictors of good clinical outcome at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: As front-line modality in M2 occlusions, the SR alone approach results in similar rates of reperfusion and good clinical outcomes to combined SR+CA and might be advantageous due to faster reperfusion times and fewer adverse events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".