Thrombectomy versus Medical Management in Mild Strokes due to Large Vessel Occlusion: Exploratory Analysis from the EXTEND‐IA Trials and a Pooled International Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study was undertaken to evaluate functional and safety outcomes for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) versus medical management (MM) in patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) and mild neurological deficits, stratified by perfusion imaging mismatch. Methods The pooled cohort consisted of patients with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) < 6 and internal carotid artery (ICA), M1, or M2 occlusions from the Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergecy Neurological Deficits ‐ Intra‐Arterial (EXTEND‐IA) Trial, Tenecteplase vs Alteplase before Endovascular Thrombectomy in Ischemic Stroke (EXTEND‐IA TNK) trials Part I/II and prospective data from 15 EVT centers from October 2010 to April 2020. RAPID software estimated ischemic core and mismatch. Patients receiving primary EVT (EVTpri) were compared to those who received primary MM (MMpri), including those who deteriorated and received rescue EVT, in overall and propensity score (PS)‐matched cohorts. Patients were stratified by target mismatch (mismatch ratio ≥ 1.8 and mismatch volume ≥ 15ml). Primary outcome was functional independence (90‐day modified Rankin Scale = 0–2). Secondary outcomes included safety (symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage [sICH], neurological worsening, and mortality). Results Of 540 patients, 286 (53%) received EVTpri and demonstrated larger critically hypoperfused tissue (Tmax > 6 seconds) volumes (median [IQR]: 64 [26–96] ml vs MMpri: 40 [14–76] ml, p < 0.001) and higher presentation NIHSS (median [IQR]: 4 [2–5] vs MMpri: 3 [2–4], p < 0.001). Functional independence was similar (EVTpri: 77.4% vs MMpri: 75.6%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82–2.03, p = 0.27). EVT had worse safety regarding sICH (EVTpri: 16.3% vs MMpri: 1.3%, p < 0.001) and neurological worsening (EVTpri: 19.6% vs MMpri: 6.7%, p < 0.001). In 414 subjects (76.7%) with target mismatch, EVT was associated with improved functional independence (EVTpri: 77.4% vs MMpri: 72.7%, aOR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.01–2.81, p = 0.048), whereas there was a trend toward less favorable outcomes with primary EVT (EVTpri: 77.4% vs MMpri: 83.3%, aOR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.12–1.34, p = 0.13) without target mismatch (pinteraction = 0.06). Similar findings were observed in a propensity score‐matched subpopulation. Interpretation Overall, EVT was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in mild strokes due to LVO, and sICH was increased. However, in patients with target mismatch profile, EVT was associated with increased functional independence. Perfusion imaging may be helpful to select mild stroke patients for EVT. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:364–378
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".