Safety and Efficacy of Intravenous Alteplase before Endovascular Thrombectomy: A Pooled Analysis with Focus on the Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current guidelines advocate intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) prior to endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for all patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO). We evaluated outcomes with and without IVT pretreatment. Our institutional protocols allow AIS patients presenting early (<4 h from onset or last seen normal) who have an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) ≥6 to undergo EVT without IVT pretreatment if the endovascular team is in the hospital (direct EVT). Rates of recanalization and hemorrhagic transformation (HT) and neurological outcomes were retrospectively compared in consecutive patients undergoing IVT+EVT vs. direct EVT with subanalyses in those ≥80 years and ≥85 years. In the overall cohort (IVT+EVT = 147, direct EVT = 162), and in subsets of patients ≥80 years (IVT+EVT = 51, direct EVT = 50) and ≥85 years (IVT+EVT = 19, direct EVT = 32), the IVT+EVT cohort and the direct EVT group had similar baseline characteristics, underwent EVT after a comparable interval from symptom onset, and reached similar rates of target vessel recanalization. No differences were observed in the HT frequency, or in disability at discharge or after 90 days. Patients receiving direct EVT underwent more stenting of the carotid artery due to stenosis during the EVT procedure (22% vs. 6%, p = 0.001). Direct EVT and IVT+EVT had comparable neurological outcomes in the overall cohort and in the subgroups of patients ≥80 and ≥85 years, suggesting that direct EVT should be considered in patients with an elevated risk for HT.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".