A Meta-analysis of Combined Aspiration Catheter and Stent Retriever versus Stent Retriever Alone for Large-Vessel Occlusion Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of combined aspiration catheter and stent retriever compared with stent retriever alone for the treatment of large-vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke is unclear. PURPOSE: Our aim was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on several metrics of efficacy comparing aspiration catheter and stent retriever with stent retriever alone. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library Databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials and case-control and cohort studies were included. STUDY SELECTION: Ten comparative studies were included detailing a combined 1495 patients with aspiration catheter and stent retriever and 1864 with stent retrievers alone. DATA ANALYSIS: Data on first pass effect (TICI 2b/2c/3 after first pass), final successful reperfusion (modified TICI ≥2b), and 90-day functional independence (mRS ≤ 2) were collected. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: There was a pooled composite first pass effect of 40.8% (611/1495) versus 32.6% (608/1864) for aspiration catheter and stent retriever and stent retriever alone, respectively (P < .0001). Similarly, on a meta-analysis, aspiration catheter and stent retriever were associated with a higher first pass effect compared with stent retriever alone (OR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.20–2.21; P = .002; I2 = 72%). There was no significant difference in composite rates of successful reperfusion between aspiration catheter and stent retriever (72.8%, 867/1190) and stent retriever alone (70.8%, 931/1314) (P = .27) or on meta-analysis (OR = 1.31; CI, 0.81–2.12; P = .27; I2 = 82%). No difference was found between aspiration catheter and stent retriever and stent retriever alone on 90-day functional independence (OR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36; P = .88; I2 = 40%). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by high interstudy heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: On meta-analysis, aspiration catheter and stent retriever are associated with a superior first pass effect compared with stent retriever alone, but they are not associated with statistically different final reperfusion or functional independence.
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 | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.067 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".