Does the Ischemic Core Really Matter? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Large Core Trials After TESLA, TENSION, and LASTE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The available evidence supporting the use of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke patients with large core has increased with the recent release of the Thrombectomy for Emergent Salvage of Large Anterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke (TESLA), Efficacy and Safety of Thrombectomy In Stroke with Extended Lesion and Extended Time Window (TENSION), and Large Stroke Therapy Evaluation (LASTE) trials, providing critical information on additional subgroups not included in initial trials. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of EVT in patients with acute ischemic stroke with large core and stratify by several subgroups including core infarct at presentation, using a comprehensive meta-analysis of aggregate data. Methods: We executed a systematic search to identify randomized controlled trials that compared EVT to medical management (MM) for the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke with large core, defined as Alberta Stroke Program Early CT [Computed Tomography] Score ≤5 on noncontrast CT and/or estimated ischemic core ≥50 mL on CT-perfusion/MR diffusion. The primary outcome was the shift analysis in the 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS) score. Secondary outcomes included functional independence (mRS score 0-2), independent ambulation (mRS score 0-3), 90-day mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Pooled odds ratios were calculated for shift mRS score through the random-effects meta-analyses, and risk ratios (RRs) were used for the other outcomes, comparing EVT with MM alone. Results: Out of 3402 titles and abstracts screened, 6 randomized controlled trials with 1886 patients were included. The EVT group had a higher shift toward a lower mRS than MM alone (odds ratio [OR], 1.49 [95% CI, 1.24-1.79]). Furthermore, the use of EVT was associated with higher rates of functional independence (19.5% versus 7.5%, RR, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.92-3.24]), independent ambulation (36.5% versus 19.9%, RR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.51-2.43]), and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (5.5% versus 3.2%, RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.01-2.95]) compared with MM. There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding mortality (31.5% versus 36.8%, RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.72-1.02]). Importantly, EVT was consistently associated with a shift toward a lower mRS score in both Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score 3-5 (OR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.10-2.32]) and Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score 0-2 (OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.17-1.80]) when compared with MM alone. Conclusion: Our results confirm the efficacy of EVT for acute ischemic stroke with large core and suggest a consistent benefit across all Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score categories. These results represent an important shift in the current large vessel occlusion selection paradigm that currently considers core as an effect modifier for EVT selection.
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 | 0.024 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".