Combined balloon guide catheter, aspiration catheter, and stent retriever technique versus balloon guide catheter and stent retriever alone technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The use of a combination of balloon guide catheter (BGC), aspiration catheter, and stent retriever in acute ischemic stroke thrombectomy has not been shown to be better than a stent retriever and BGC alone, but this may be due to a lack of power in these studies. We therefore performed a meta-analysis on this subject. Methods A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Embase/Ovid, and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 20, 2021. Our primary outcomes were the rate of successful final reperfusion (Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia (TICI) 2c–3) and first pass effect (FPE, defined as TICI 2c–3 in a single pass). Secondary outcomes were 3 month functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2), mortality, procedural complications, embolic complications, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH). A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5,4, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Results Of 1629 studies identified, five articles with 2091 patients were included. For the primary outcomes, FPE (44.9% vs 45.4%, OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), I2=57%) or final successful reperfusion (64.5% vs 68.6%, OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.81% to 1.20%), I2=85%) was similar between the combination technique and stent retriever only groups. However, the combination technique had significantly less rescue treatment (18.8% vs 26.9%; OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.91), I2=0%). This did not translate into significant differences in secondary outcomes in functional outcomes, mortality, emboli, complications, or SICH. Conclusion There was no significant difference in successful reperfusion and FPE between the combined techniques and the stent retriever and BGC alone groups. Neither was there any difference in functional outcomes, complications, or mortality.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".