Endovascular therapy of acute vertebrobasilar occlusions: influence of first-line strategy in the Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke (ETIS) Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of the first-line technique in vertebrobasilar occlusions (VBOs) remains challenging. We aimed to report outcomes in a large cohort of patients and to compare the efficacy and safety of contact aspiration (CA) and combined technique (CoT) as a first-line endovascular technique in patients with acute VBOs. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical and neuroradiological data of patients with VBOs from the prospective, multicenter, observational Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke (ETIS) Registry in France between January 2015 and August 2023. The primary outcome was the first pass effect (FPE) rate, whereas modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 2b-3 and 2c-3, number of passes, need for rescue strategy, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2, mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) were secondary outcomes. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to investigate differences between the two groups. RESULTS: Among the 583 included patients (mean age 66.2 years, median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 13, median posterior circulation Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (pc-ASPECTS) 8), 393 were treated with CA alone and 190 with CoT. Procedures performed with CA were shorter compared with CoT (28 vs 47 min, P<0.0001); however, no differences were observed in terms of FPE (CA 43.3% vs CoT 38.4%, P=0.99), and successful final recanalization (mTICI 2b-3, CA 92.4% vs CoT 91.8%, P=0.74) did not differ between the two groups. Functional independence and sICH rates were also similar, whereas mortality was significantly lower in the CA group (34.5% vs 42.9%; OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.11). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no differences in FPE, mTICI 2b-3, sICH, and functional independence between the two study groups. First-line CA was associated with shorter procedures and lower mortality rates than CoT.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".