Sex differences in endovascular thrombectomy outcomes in large vessel occlusion: a propensity-matched analysis from the SELECT study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sex disparities in acute ischemic stroke outcomes are well reported with IV thrombolysis. Despite several studies, there is still a lack of consensus on whether endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) outcomes differ between men and women. OBJECTIVE: To compare sex differences in EVT outcomes at 90-day follow-up and assess whether progression in functional status from discharge to 90-day follow-up differs between men and women. METHODS: From the Selection for Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke (SELECT) prospective cohort study (2016-2018), adult men and women (≥18 years) with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion (internal carotid artery, middle cerebral artery M1/M2) treated with EVT up to 24 hours from last known well were matched using propensity scores. Discharge and 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were compared between men and women. Furthermore, we evaluated the improvement in mRS scores from discharge to 90 days in men and women using a repeated-measures, mixed-effects regression model. RESULTS: Of 285 patients, 139 (48.8%) were women. Women were older with median (IQR) age 69 (57-81) years vs 64.5 (56-75), p=0.044, had smaller median perfusion deficits (Tmax >6 s) 109 vs 154 mL (p<0.001), and had better collaterals on CT angiography and CT perfusion but similar ischemic core size (relative cerebral blood flow <30%: 7.6 (0-25.2) vs 11.4 (0-38) mL, p=0.22). In 65 propensity-matched pairs, despite similar discharge functional independence rates (women: 42% vs men: 48%, aOR=0.55, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.69, p=0.30), women exhibited worse 90-day functional independence rates (women: 46% vs men: 60%, aOR=0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.00, p=0.05). The reduction in mRS scores from discharge to 90 days also demonstrated a significantly larger improvement in men (discharge 2.49 and 90 days 1.88, improvement 0.61) than in women (discharge 2.52 and 90 days 2.44, improvement 0.08, p=0.036). CONCLUSION: In a propensity-matched cohort from the SELECT study, women had similar discharge outcomes as men following EVT, but the improvement from discharge to 90 days was significantly worse in women, suggesting the influence of post-discharge factors. Further exploration of this phenomenon to identify target interventions is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02446587.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".