Number of passes and outcome of endovascular treatment of anterior circulation large core ischemic stroke: insights from the Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke (ETIS) registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of multiple attempts on the outcome of endovascular treatment (EVT) of anterior circulation large ischemic core (LIC) stroke has not been fully explored. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke (ETIS) registry, a prospective, observational, multicenter study of acute ischemic stroke patients treated with EVT at 21 centers in France between January 1, 2015 and June 31, 2023. We included patients with proximal intracranial occlusion and LIC defined as Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 0-5 up to 24 hours after last being seen well. We divided patients according to the number of passes with successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) ≥2b) into seven groups, according to the corresponding number of passes. We compared them to the group of patients with unsuccessful reperfusion. RESULTS: A total of 1235 patients with LIC constituted the study cohort. The rate of a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 3 at 90 days was significantly higher for the one-pass successful recanalization category compared to no recanalization (48.1% vs 17.2%; adjusted OR (aOR) 7.99, 95% CI 4.30 to 14.8, P<0.001) and remained so even after six or more attempts (27.7% vs 17.2%; aOR 3.59, 95% CI 1.37 to 9.39, P=0.009). The rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was lower for successful recanalization up to two passes (11.1% vs 18.8%; aOR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.69, P=0.002) without any significant differences for a higher number of passes. CONCLUSION: In anterior circulation LIC patients, successful reperfusion, even after six passes, is associated with favorable clinical outcomes with no increased hemorrhagic risk when compared to unsuccessful reperfusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".