Effect of Needle-To-Puncture Time on Reperfusion Outcome in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of time interval between start of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) to start of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) on stroke outcomes. METHODS: Data from the Quality Improvement and Clinical Research (QuICR) provincial stroke registry from Alberta, Canada, were used to identify stroke patients who received IVT and EVT from January 2015 to December 2019. We assessed the impact of the time interval between IVT bolus to EVT puncture (needle-to-puncture times [NPT]) on outcomes. Radiological outcomes included successful initial recanalization (revised Arterial Occlusive Lesion 2b-3), successful initial and final reperfusion (modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b-3). Clinical outcomes were 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 680 patients, 233 patients (median age: 73, 41% females) received IVT + EVT. Median NPT was 38 min (IQR, 24-60). Arrival during working hours was independently associated with shorter NPT (p < 0.001). Successful initial recanalization and initial and final reperfusion were observed in 12%, 10%, and 83% of patients, respectively. NPT was not associated with initial successful recanalization (OR 0.97 for every 10-min increase of NPT, 95% CI: 0.91-1.04), initial successful reperfusion (OR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96-1.07), or final successful reperfusion (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.97-1.08). Every 10-min delay in NPT was associated with lower odds of functional independence at 90 days (mRS ≤2; OR: 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97). Patients with shorter NPT (≤38 min) had lower 90-day mRS scores (median 1 vs. 3; OR: 0.54 [0.31-0.91]) and had lower mortality (6.1% vs. 21.2%; OR, 0.23 [0.10-0.57]) than the longer NPT group. CONCLUSION: Shorter NPT did not impact reperfusion outcomes but was associated with better clinical outcome.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".