MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387048106 · doi:10.3390/life13101965

Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Futile Recanalization in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Undergoing Endovascular Thrombectomy: Prevalence, Factors, and Clinical Outcomes

2023· review· en· W4387048106 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helen Shen, Murray C. Killingsworth, Sonu Bhaskar

Bibliographic record

VenueLife · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceAustralian Academy of Science
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalOdds ratioAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Internal medicineMeta-analysisIschemic strokeDiabetes mellitusCardiologyIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Futile recanalization (FR) continues to raise concern despite the success of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Understanding the prevalence of FR and identifying associated factors are crucial for refining patient prognoses and optimizing management strategies. Objectives: This study aims to comprehensively assess the pooled prevalence of FR, explore the diverse factors connected with FR, and establish the association of FR with long-term clinical outcomes among AIS patients undergoing EVT. Materials and Methods: Incorporating studies focusing on FR following EVT in AIS patients, we conducted a random-effect meta-analysis to assess the pooled prevalence and its association with various clinical and imaging risk factors linked to FR. Summary estimates were compiled and study heterogeneity was explored. Results: Our comprehensive meta-analysis, involving 11,700 AIS patients undergoing EVT, revealed a significant pooled prevalence of FR at 51%, with a range of 48% to 54% (Effect Size [ES]: 51%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 48–54%; z = 47.66; p < 0.001). Numerous clinical factors demonstrated robust correlations with FR, including atrial fibrillation (Odds Ratio [OR]: 1.39, 95% CI 1.22 1.59; p < 0.001), hypertension (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.41 1.92; p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.47 1.99; p < 0.001), previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (OR 1.298, 95% CI 1.06 1.59; p = 0.012), prior anticoagulant usage (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 1.63; p = 0.007), cardioembolic strokes (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10 1.63; p = 0.003), and general anesthesia (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.35 1.74; p < 0.001). Conversely, FR exhibited reduced likelihoods of smoking (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57 0.77; p < 0.001), good collaterals (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23 0.49; p < 0.001), male sex (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 0.97; p = 0.016), and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 0.86; p < 0.001). FR was strongly associated with increasing age (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 0.56; p < 0.0001), baseline systolic blood pressure (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.13 0.27; p < 0.001), baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Severity Score (SMD 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65 0.86; p < 0.001), onset-to-treatment time (SMD 0.217, 95% CI 0.13 0.30; p < 0.001), onset-to-recanalization time (SMD 0.38, 95% CI 0.19; 0.57; p < 0.001), and baseline blood glucose (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.22 0.41; p < 0.001), while displaying a negative association with reduced baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) (SMD −0.37, 95% CI −0.46 −0.27; p < 0.001). Regarding clinical outcomes, FR was significantly associated with increased odds of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages (OR 7.37, 95% CI 4.89 11.12; p < 0.001), hemorrhagic transformations (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.37 3.75; p < 0.001), and 90-day mortality (OR 19.24, 95% CI 1.57 235.18; p = 0.021). Conclusions: The substantial prevalence of FR, standing at approximately 51%, warrants clinical consideration. These findings underscore the complexity of FR in AIS patients and highlight the importance of tailoring management strategies based on individual risk factors and clinical profiles.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.065
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations48
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLifeSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207