Functional Outcomes of Patients ≥85 Years With Acute Ischemic Stroke Following EVT: A HERMES Substudy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Observational studies have shown endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke to be effective in the elderly, despite resulting in poorer outcomes and higher rates of mortality compared with younger patients. Randomized data on the effect of advanced age on outcomes following EVT are, however, lacking. Our aim was to assess the EVT effect for ischemic stroke in patients aged ≥85 years and the influence of age on outcome in a large, randomized trial dataset. METHODS: Data were from the HERMES (Highly Effective Reperfusion Evaluated in Multiple Endovascular Stroke Trials) collaboration, a meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials published between January 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that tested the efficacy of EVT. A possible multiplicative interaction effect of age on the relationship between treatment and outcome was investigated. Ordinal logistic regression tested the association between EVT and 90-day functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale, primary outcome) in patients ≥85 years. Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to compare primary and secondary outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2/5-6) of patients ≥85 years versus those <85 years. RESULTS: =0.031) was observed, with older adults having worse functional outcomes at 90 days compared with younger patients (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.13-0.33]). However, a benefit of EVT was observed in the ≥85-year-old patient subgroup (common odds ratio, 4.20 [95% CI, 1.56-11.32]). Age ≥85 years was not significantly associated with differing rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage or reperfusion (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 0.71-5.15] and adjusted odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.40-2.06], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients ≥85 years old with independent premorbid function more often achieve good functional outcomes and have lower rates of mortality when treated with EVT compared with conservative management, with an observed treatment effect modification of age on outcome. EVT should therefore not be withheld in this subgroup.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".