Abstract 230: Endovascular therapy for large core ischemic strokes: Meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Background: Patients with acute strokes with large infarct size are traditionally excluded from endovascular therapies, as like as clinical care. However, questions remain with respect to the safety and efficacy of EVT in these patients. Methods We conducted a meta‐analysis based on pooled data from SELECT 2 trial [1], ANGEL‐ASPECT trial [2], RESCUE Japan [3], and HERMES study [4]. We explored the efficacy of EVT for large infarcts to achieve a favorable 90‐day modified Rankin Scale. Also, we compared favorable outcomes following EVT in those with a core infarct at baseline of more than 70 ml, delayed thrombectomy of more than 6 hours, older than 75 years, and those who received concomitant IV thrombolysis. We also examined the pooled rate of hemorrhagic transformation following EVT in large core strokes. Results This meta‐analysis showed a statistically significant higher rate of favorable outcome in subjects with extremely large infarct size who undergone EVT compared to those who were managed by medical therapy alone (RR: 1.41, 95% CI: [1.05‐1.98], p: 0.03). In the subgroups of patients with core size > 70ml (RR: 1.51, 95% CI: [1.23‐1.87]), late window presentation (LKN to randomization ≥ 6 hours), (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: [1.27‐1.84]), or those 75 or older than 75 years old (RR: 1.43, 95% CI: [1.12‐1.84]), EVT was associated with higher rates of favorable 90‐day mRS score of 0‐3 compared to medical therapy alone. However, EVT was not associated with better outcomes in those who received IV thrombolysis (RR: 1.37, 95% CI: [0.93‐2.01]. Based on pooled data from SELECT‐2, ANGEL‐ASPECT, and RESCUE Japan trials, the overall rate of early symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation among cases with ASPECT 0‐5 in the thrombectomy group was not significantly higher compared to patients who were managed non‐surgically (OR 1.75, 95% CI: [0.89‐3.47]). Conclusion Endovascular therapy is a reasonable option for the management of large infarcts. EVT results in favorable outcome by a delayed thrombectomy for a large core infarct and in older patients.
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 | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".