Repeated mechanical thrombectomy for recurrent large vessel occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is the standard treatment for acute large vessel occlusion (LVO). Recurrent LVO can still occur in patients who already underwent MT for the first LVO. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of repeating MT for recurrent LVO. METHODS: This meta-analysis of the available literature was conducted to summarize the current evidence regarding repeated MT outcomes in patients with recurrent LVO. All studies with ≥ 1 outcomes of interest were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: Twenty studies, 10 observational (n = 21,251 patients) and 10 case reports (n = 10 patients), were included. 266 patients (62.78% females) with recurrent LVO were identified, with an overall prevalence of 1.6% and a mean age of 65.67 ± 16.23 years. Cardio-embolism was the most common mechanism in both times, with a median of 15 days between the first and second LVOs. Compared with pre-intervention, the first and second MTs significantly reduced the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, (mean difference (MD) = -8.91) and (MD = -5.97) respectively, with a significant difference (p = 0.001). The rate of favorable outcome (modified Rankin scale (mRS) score 0-3) was 82.6% and 59.2% after the first and second MTs respectively, with a significant difference (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In properly selected recurrent LVO patients, repeated MT is efficacious and safe. A prior MT procedure should not discourage aggressive treatment as many patients may achieve favorable outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".