Antegrade or Retrograde Approach for the Management of Tandem Occlusions in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by tandem intracranial and extracranial occlusions is not rare. However, optimal strategy between antegrade (extracranial first) or retrograde (intracranial first) approaches still remains elusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare the two approaches to provide updated clinical evidence of strategy selection. Methods: PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for literature comparing antegrade and retrograde approaches for patients with AIS with concomitant tandem occlusions. Outcomes including successful reperfusion [Throbolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) 2b−3] and 90-day favorable outcome [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–2], any intracerebral hemorrhage, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, procedural complications, and mortality were evaluated. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and illustrated in the Funnel plot. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: A total of 11 studies accounting 1,517 patients were included. 831 (55%) patients were treated with an antegrade approach and 686 (45%) patients were treated with the retrograde approach. A higher successful reperfusion rate was achieved in retrograde group than that of antegrade group [83.8 vs. 78.0%; odds ratio (OR): 0.63, 95% CI: 0.40–0.99, p = 0.04]. 90-day favorable outcome (mRS 0–2 at 90 days) also showed significantly higher in retrograde group compared with antegrade group (47.3 vs. 40.2%; OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58–0.89, p = 0.002). The incidence of any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, 90-day mortality, and other complications did not differ between two groups. Conclusion: In AIS with tandem occlusions, the retrograde approach might achieve a higher successful reperfusion rate and better functional outcome with a comparable safety profile when compared with an antegrade approach. Further prospective controlled studies with more meticulous design and a higher level of evidence are needed to confirm these results. Systematic Review Registration: “PROSPERO” database (CRD 42020199093), https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ .
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".