MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317910391 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2023.1023089

Rescue intracranial stenting for acute ischemic stroke after the failure of mechanical thrombectomy: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis

2023· review· en· W4317910391 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Junxiu Cai, Hai Xu, Rongzhou Xiao, Liping Hu, Ping Xu, Xianbin Guo, Yu Xie, Min Pan, Jie Tang, Qingtao Gong, Yan Liu, Rong Su, Jiahua Deng, Li Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleMeta-analysisStroke (engine)Internal medicineSubgroup analysisMortality rateCardiologyIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Intracranial rescue stenting (RS) might be an option for acute ischemic stroke after the failure of mechanical thrombectomy (MT). However, the findings were not consistent in previous systematic reviews, and whether the conclusion was supported by sufficient statistical power is unknown. Aim To examine the effect of RS on acute ischemic stroke after the failure of MT with a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA). Methods We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to 15 June 2022, without any language restriction. Studies assessing the effect of RS for acute ischemia stroke after MT failure were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved articles, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the included studies through the New Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary outcome was the recanalization rate after RS. Secondary outcomes included modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months after stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and mortality rate. We synthesized the data through a random-effects model and performed a TSA analysis. Results We included 15 studies (containing 1,595 participants) after screening 3,934 records. The pooled recanalization rate for rescue stenting was 82% (95% CI 77–87%). Compared with non-stenting, rescue stenting was associated with a higher proportion of patients with 0–2 mRS score (OR 3.96, 95% CI 2.69–5.84, p < 0.001) and a lower 90-day mortality rate (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32–0.65, p < 0.001), and stenting did not increase sICH rate (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39–1.04, p = 0.075). The TSA analysis showed that the meta-analysis of the mRS score had a sufficient sample size and statistical power. Conclusions Our study showed that rescue stenting was effective and safe for patients with acute ischemia stroke who also had a failed MT, and this result was confirmed in a TSA analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.040
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207