Endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke in patients with pre-morbid disability: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trials of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for acute stroke have excluded patients with pre-morbid disability. Observational studies may help inform consideration of EVT in this population. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of EVT in patients with pre-morbid disability. METHODS: According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies describing outcomes in patients with pre-morbid disability (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 2-5), treated with EVT or medical management (MM). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes including 90-day return to baseline mRS, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed 14 studies of patients with pre-morbid disability (mRS 2-5, 1373 EVT and 253 MM). The rate of return to baseline mRS was 30.0% (95% CI 25.3% to 34.7%) in patients treated with EVT. Compared with medical therapy, EVT was associated with a higher likelihood of return to baseline mRS (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.04) and a trend towards lower mortality (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.02), with similar odds of sICH (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.08). In studies comparing patients with versus without pre-morbid disability treated with EVT, similar results were found except that pre-morbid disability, when defined more strictly as mRS 3-5, was associated with mortality (OR 3.49, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: In eligible patients with pre-morbid disability, observational studies suggest that EVT carries a higher chance of return to baseline mRS compared with patients treated with MM or without pre-morbid disability, although with higher mortality than patients without pre-morbid disability. These findings argue against the routine exclusion of such patients from EVT and merit validation with randomized trials.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.067 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".