Comparison of Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (TICI) 2b and TICI 3 reperfusion in endovascular therapy for large ischemic anterior circulation strokes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Landmark thrombectomy trials have provided evidence that selected patients with large ischemic stroke benefit from successful endovascular therapy, commonly defined as incomplete (modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2b) or complete reperfusion (mTICI 3). We aimed to investigate whether mTICI 3 improves functional outcomes compared with mTICI 2b in large ischemic strokes. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted to compare mTICI 2b versus mTICI 3 in large ischemic strokes in the anterior circulation. Patients enrolled in the German Stroke Registry between 2015-2021 were analyzed. Large ischemic stroke was defined as an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 3-5. Patients were matched by final mTICI grade using propensity score matching. Primary outcome was the 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. RESULTS: After matching, 226 patients were included. Baseline and imaging characteristics were balanced between mTICI 2b and mTICI 3 patients. There was no shift on the mRS favoring mTICI 3 compared with mTICI 2b in large ischemic strokes (adjusted common odds ratio (acOR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.64 to 1.94, P=0.70). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was higher in mTICI 2b than in mTICI 3 patients (12.6% vs 4.5%, P=0.03). Mortality at 90 days did not differ between mTICI 3 and mTICI 2b (33.6% vs 37.2%; adjusted OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.45, P=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: In endovascular therapy for large ischemic strokes, mTICI 3 was not associated with better 90-day functional outcomes compared with mTICI 2b. This study suggests that mTICI 2b might be warranted as the final angiographic result, questioning the benefit/risk ratio of additional maneuvers to seek for mTICI 3 in large ischemic strokes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03356392.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".