Intravenous alteplase before endovascular therapy for acute large vessel occlusion with large ischemic core: subanalysis of a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of endovascular therapy (EVT) in patients with large ischemic core has been reported, but it remains unclear whether IV alteplase (IVT) has beneficial effects in addition to EVT in such patients. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of EVT with or without IVT. METHODS: The RESCUE-Japan LIMIT was an open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EVT in stroke patients with large ischemic core, defined as Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) 3-5. This subanalysis evaluated the differences in the effects of EVT with medical care (EVT group) compared with medical care alone (No-EVT group) between those who received IVT (IVT stratum) and those who did not (No-IVT stratum) before EVT. RESULTS: Among 202 enrolled patients, 147 (73%) did not receive IVT. In the No-IVT stratum, the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-3 at 90 days was significantly higher in the EVT group than in the No-EVT group (31.1% vs 12.3%, OR 3.21 (95% CI 1.37 to 7.53)). In the IVT stratum, the mRS score of 0-3 was 30.8% in the EVT group and 13.8% in the No-EVT group (OR 2.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 10.7)) (interaction p=0.77). The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was not different between the two groups in the No-IVT stratum (OR 1.20 (95% CI 0.35 to 4.12)), but it was significantly higher in the EVT group than in the No-EVT group in the IVT stratum (11.5% vs 0%, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in efficacy of EVT with or without IVT, while IVT before EVT might increase symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients with large ischemic core. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: NCT03702413.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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; 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".