Three years’ interventional neurology experience in Turkey with the Thrombite thrombectomy device in large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation: safety, efficacy, and clinical outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: While the Thrombite device differs from the Solitare stent with its Helical open-side structure feature, it shows great similarity with its other features. We assessed the Thrombite device's effectiveness and safety in this study. Materials and methods: The study was a retrospective analysis of patients who were included in the Turkish Interventional Neurology database and who had mechanical thrombectomy with the Thrombite device as the first choice between January 2020 and January 2023. The type of study is descriptive research. Result: Using the Thrombite thrombectomy device, 525 patients received treatment. The median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 13, the median initial Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography (ASPECT) score was 8, and the mean patient age was 68.6+11.7 years. Between the groin puncture and the successful recanalization, the median time was 34 minutes (interquartile range [IQR]: 15-45). 48.2% (modified treatment in cerebral infarction; mTICI) 2b/3% and 33.9% (mTICI 2c/3) were the first-pass recanalization rates. In the end, 87.7% of patients had effective recanalization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2b/3). In the "first-pass" subgroup, the favorable functional result (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) was 51.8%, while it was 41.6% for the entire patient population. The rate of embolization into new territory/different territory were 2.1/0.1%. 23 patients (4.5%) had symptomatic hemorrhage. Conclusion: The Thrombite device showed a good safety profile and high overall successful recanalization rates in our experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".