The use of thromboaspiration and combined treatment in patients with ischemic stroke in real-life clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of staged reperfusion therapy in real clinical practice requires clarification. Objective: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mechanical thromboextraction and staged reperfusion therapy with alteplase in real clinical practice. Material and methods. The study included 106 patients who were retrospectively divided into two groups: Group I underwent staged reperfusion therapy (intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase followed by aspiration thromboextraction), Group II underwent thromboaspiration only. The clinical and functional results, incidence of hemorrhagic transformation and mortality rate were compared. Results. The groups did not differ in terms of demographic data, cardiovascular risk factors or stroke severity. Group II patients were characterized by a longer delay in reperfusion therapy (225 minutes versus 180 minutes) and a lower score on the Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT score (ASPECTS; 8.8 points versus 9.3 points). There were no differences in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores at day 28, dynamics of NIHSS scores, Rankin scores at day 28, rates of hemorrhagic transformation or mortality. In both groups, the deceased patients were older; in Group I they suffered more frequently from atrial fibrillation, in Group II – from diabetes mellitus type 2. In addition, mortality in Group II was associated with a higher severity of early signs of cerebral infarction.Conclusion. The results of the analysis of real-life clinical practice show the comparability of the efficacy and safety of staged reperfusion therapy and isolated thromboaspiration in a “natural” selection of 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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".