Comparing data from thrombectomy in m2 occlusion and proximal middle cerebral artery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation has been shown to be beneficial. The question of whether this technique is safe and effective in the distal vasculature remains unanswered. We wanted to compare outcome data from mechanical thrombectomy of M2 branches of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) with those of the M1 segment, and better understand the clinical predictors of these M2 occlusions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of data prospectively collected between January 2017 and July 2021 from patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy of isolated M1 or M2 branches of the MCA. RESULTS: 350 patients were identified, 287 with M1 and 63 with M2 occlusions. Mean age was 70.71 ± 12.55 and 75.21 ± 10.21 years, respectively (p = 0.0083). Baseline Alberta Stroke Program Computed Tomography (ASPECT) score was worse in the M1 cohort (7.68 ± 1.73 vs. 8.32 ± 1.54; p = 0.0079), while there was no significant difference in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores. No statistical disparity existed in mean procedure duration for each cohort; fewer thrombectomy attempts were required in the M2 cohort (2.01 vs. 1.63; p = 0.0478). There was no statistical difference in total time to recanalization (559.19 vs. 629.97, p = 0.2506). Similar rates of successful reperfusion were observed (Thrombolysis in Ischaemic Stroke score [TICI] ≥ 2b 80.84% vs. 71.43% p = 0.1221). Good outcome (modified Rankin scale ≤ 2) was 56.10 in M1 occlusions and 63.49% on M2 groups. Intracranial haemorrhage rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: M2 thrombectomy is safe and a significant proportion of patients achieve a good clinical outcome. Advanced age, atrial fibrillation and previous treatment with anticoagulants were predictors for poor outcome. Good outcome was achieved when effective recanalization was obtained.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".