Reperfusion therapies for ischemic stroke in dementia and cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) have an unclear benefit in those with pre-stroke dementia or cognitive impairment, as these patients were often excluded from landmark stroke trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the outcomes of IVT and EVT in these populations. AIMS: Our systematic review, conforming to the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, investigated studies on acute ischemic stroke patients with pre-stroke dementia or cognitive impairment treated with IVT or EVT. Primary outcome was favorable 90-day outcome (mRS 0-2). Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), and radiographic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). SUMMARY OF REVIEW: Nine articles were identified, with five observational studies of IVT use in patients with (n = 1078) and without dementia (n = 2805) being selected for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in favorable outcome (adjusted OR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.24-1.59), mortality (unadjusted OR: 1.19, 95% CI 0.86-1.64), ICH (unadjusted OR: 1.32, 95% CI 0.79-2.19), and symptomatic ICH (unadjusted OR: 0.94, 95% CI 0.70-1.25) for patients undergoing IVT with pre-stroke dementia versus those without. One EVT study (n = 615 with dementia vs n = 9600 without) found no significant differences in outcomes apart from an increased odds of ICH for those with pre-existing dementia (adjusted OR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.03-2.40). A pooled analysis of three IVT studies showed no significant association of cognitive impairment (n = 93 vs n = 211 without) with all assessed outcomes, whereas a study of EVT found that pre-stroke cognitive impairment was associated with poor 90-day outcomes (mRS 3-6). CONCLUSION: These results suggest no substantial safety issues in the use of IVT or EVT for patients with pre-existing dementia or cognitive impairment compared to those without. However, the efficacy of these therapies in this demographic remains uncertain. Further rigorous studies that include a more nuanced outcome measurement approach are warranted. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42021240499.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".