Association of Time Course of Thrombectomy and Outcomes for Large Acute Ischemic Region: RESCUE–Japan LIMIT Subanalysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The effectiveness of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) has been proven even in patients with large cerebral infarction in the early time window. However, the association of the time course with the treatment effect is unknown. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the influence of the time course from stroke onset to reperfusion on the therapeutic effect of EVT. Methods The subjects were patients with occlusion of large vessels and sizable strokes on imaging (Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomographic score 3–5) in RESCUE–Japan LIMIT (Recovery by Endovascular Salvage for Cerebral Ultra‐Acute Embolism–Japan Large Ischemic Core Trial), a multicenter, randomized, clinical open‐label trial of EVT versus medical care alone. In the current analysis, the clinical and time course characteristics associated with a favorable outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS] score of 0–2 and 0–3 at 90 days) were examined in patients treated with EVT. Results The analysis included 71 patients (median age, 77 years; median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score on admission, 21). Occlusion sites were the internal carotid artery (48%), proximal segment of the middle cerebral artery (72%) and tandem lesions (20%). Of these patients, 23 (32%) had an mRS score of 0 to 3 and 12 (17%) had an mRS score of 0 to 2 at 90 days. In multivariate analysis, there were independent associations of onset to reperfusion time (odds ratio [OR], 0.991 [95% CI, 0.984–0.999]; P =0.01) and puncture to reperfusion time (OR , 0.952 [95% CI, 0.917–0.988]; P <0.001) with an mRS score of 0 to 3 at 90 days, and puncture to reperfusion time (OR, 0.930 [95% CI, 0.872–0.991]; P =0.004) with an mRS score of 0 to 2 at 90 days. Conclusion Earlier reperfusion was related to a favorable outcome in patients with acute large‐vessel occlusion with a large ischemic region. Onset to reperfusion time and especially puncture to reperfusion time were independently associated with a favorable outcome. These results suggest the importance of timing and uninterrupted EVT in this patient population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".