Endovascular treatment for large-core ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose Current guidelines recommend endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), due to large-vessel occlusion and an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of ≥6. High-quality evidence resulting from randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) regarding EVT among large-core AIS has recently become available, justifying an updated meta-analysis aiming to evaluate efficacy and safety of EVT in this clinical setting. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including all available RCTs that compared EVT in addition to best medical treatment (BMT) versus BMT alone for large-core AIS (defined by ASPECTS 2–5 or volumetric methods). The primary outcome was reduced disability at 3 months (≥1-point reduction across all Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) grades). Secondary outcomes included independent ambulation at 3 months (mRS score 0–3), good functional outcome at 3 months (mRS score 0–2), excellent functional outcome at 3 months (mRS score 0–1), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) and any intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and mortality at 3 months. The random-effects model was used. Results Four RCTs were included comprising a total of 662 patients treated with EVT vs 649 patients treated with BMT. Compared with BMT, EVT was significantly associated with reduced disability (common OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.07; I2=0%), independent ambulation (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.14; I2=39%) and good functional outcome (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.10; I2=0%), but not with excellent functional outcome (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.33; I2=39%) at 3 months. Although rates of sICH (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.68; I2=0%) and any ICH (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.66; I2=37%) were higher in the EVT group, 3-month mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15; I2=0%) did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion EVT appears to be effective and safe and may be considered for the treatment of large-core AIS, as assessed by ASPECTS of 2–5 or volumetric methods. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022334417.
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 | 0.026 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".