MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393346497 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28873

Impact of stent retriever size on clinical outcomes in the RECO registry

2024· article· en· W4393346497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yunlong Ding, Xiaoxiao Mao, Lei Bao, Tingting Zhai, Wenjuan Wang, Zhiqun Gu, Yan Liu, Jiali Niu

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTaizhou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau
KeywordsMedicineStentLabrador RetrieverInternal carotid arteryCarotid arteriesOcclusionRadiologySurgeryInternal medicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: In the RECO study, we investigated the impact of the operator's choice of stent retriever size on patients with internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion. Methods: Data from the RECO Registry, a prospective multicentre study, were utilized. Patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy (MT) were divided according to the size of the stent into the RECO 4 × 20 group, the RECO 5 × 30 group and the RECO 6 × 30 group. The outcome measures assessed in the study were the 3-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, occurrence of any intracranial haemorrhage (aICH), workflow timing, recanalization success rate, number of attempts, and all-cause mortality within a 3-month period. Results: Analysis was conducted on a total of 89 patients with ICA occlusion. RECO 4 × 20, 5 × 30, and 6 × 30 stent retrievers were used in 19 (21.3%), 52 (58.4%), and 18 (20.2%) patients, respectively. The demographic and baseline characteristics showed considerable similarity across the three groups. The puncture-to-recanalization time of the RECO 6 × 30 group [56.5 min (IQR, 41.5-80.8)] was significantly shorter than that of the RECO 4 × 20 group [110 min (IQR, 47-135)]. In 10 out of 18 patients (55.6%), the RECO 6 × 30 stent retriever achieved reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [mTICI] score 2b-3) after the initial attempt, surpassing the rates of 31.6% in the RECO 4 × 20 group and 32.7% in the RECO 5 × 30 group. In the RECO 4 × 20 group, the median number of passes was 2 (IQR, 1-3); in the RECO 5 × 30 group, it was 2 (IQR, 1-3); and in the RECO 6 × 30 groups, it was 1 (IQR, 1-2.5). There were no statistically significant differences observed among the three groups concerning aICH or good outcomes (mRS score 0-2). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated the practical implications of stent-retriever size selection in the context of the MT for ICA occlusion. The routine use of a RECO 6 × 30 stent retriever holds the potential for early revascularization in clinical practice. The significant reduction in the puncture-to-reperfusion time and the greater first-pass effect associated with this stent size underscore its efficiency in treating ICA occlusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207