Endovascular Thrombectomy for the Treatment of Large Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Endovascular thrombectomy has previously been reserved for patients with small to medium acute ischemic strokes. Three recent randomized control trials have demonstrated functional benefit and risk profiles for thrombectomy in large-volume ischemic strokes. The primary objective of the meta-analysis was to determine the combined benefit of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large-volume ischemic strokes and to determine the risk of adverse events after treatment. METHODS: We systematically searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register, and Google Scholar for randomized trials published between January 1, 2010, and February 19, 2023. We included trials specifically comparing endovascular thrombectomy with medical therapy in adults with acute ischemic stroke with large-volume infarctions (defined by Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score 3-5 or a calculated infarct volume of >50 mL). Data were extracted based on prespecified variables on study methods and design, participant characteristics, analysis approach, and efficacy/safety outcomes. Results were combined using a restricted maximum-likelihood estimation random-effects model. Studies were assessed for potential bias and quality of evidence. The primary outcome was an overall ordinal shift across modified Rankin scale scores toward a better outcome at 90 days after either treatment arm. RESULTS: Three thousand forty-four studies were screened, and 29 underwent full-text review. Three randomized trials (N = 1011) were included in the analysis. The pooled random-effects model for the primary outcome favored endovascular thrombectomy over medical management, with a generalized odds ratio of 1.55 (95% CI 1.25-1.91, I 2 = 42.84%). There was a trend toward increased risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the thrombectomy group, with a relative risk of 1.85 (95% CI 0.94-3.63, I 2 = 0.00%). CONCLUSION: In patients with large-volume ischemic strokes, endovascular thrombectomy has a clear functional benefit and does not confer increased risk of significant complications compared with medical management alone.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.061 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".