Futile reperfusion of endovascular treatment for acute anterior circulation large vessel occlusion in the ANGEL-ACT registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) still cannot achieve functional independence despite successful reperfusion after endovascular treatment (EVT), named futile reperfusion. We aimed to explore the incidence and predictors of futile reperfusion of EVT for anterior circulation LVO in the Chinese population based on a nationwide prospective multicenter registry. METHODS: We selected patients from the ANGEL-ACT (Endovascular Treatment Key Technique and Emergency Workflow Improvement of Acute Ischemic Stroke) registry. Successful reperfusion was defined as modified Treatment In Cerebral Ischemia (mTICI) 2b-3 after EVT, and functional independence was defined as 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2. A multivariable regression model was performed to identify the independent predictors of futile reperfusion in anterior circulation LVO patients. RESULTS: A total of 1158 anterior circulation LVO patients were included in our study. 600 of the 1158 patients (51.8%) suffered futile reperfusion. Age ≥69 (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.69, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.35, P=0.002), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥14 (aOR 2.36, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.27, P<0.001), baseline serum glucose ≥6.5 mmol/L (aOR 1.73, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.36, P=0.001), drip and ship (aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.18, P=0.011), and general anesthesia (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.14, P<0.001) were associated with a high risk of futile reperfusion in the anterior LVO patients after EVT, whereas baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) ≥8 (aOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.91, P=0.011) and complete reperfusion (aOR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89, P=0.010) were associated with a low risk of futile reperfusion in the anterior LVO patients after EVT. CONCLUSIONS: In the ANGEL-ACT registry, 51.8% of anterior circulation LVO patients suffered futile reperfusion after EVT. Age ≥69 years, baseline NIHSS ≥14, baseline serum glucose ≥6.5 mmol/L, drip and ship, general anesthesia, baseline ASPECTS <8, and incomplete reperfusion were the independent predictors of futile reperfusion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".