Anticoagulation Use and Endovascular Thrombectomy in Patients with Large Core Stroke: A Secondary Analysis of the <scp>SELECT2</scp> Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) safety and efficacy in patients with large core infarcts receiving oral anticoagulants (OAC) are unknown. In the SELECT2 trial (NCT03876457), 29 of 180 (16%; vitamin K antagonists 15, direct OACs 14) EVT, and 18 of 172 (10%; vitamin K antagonists 3, direct OACs 15) medical management (MM) patients reported OAC use at baseline. EVT was not associated with better clinical outcomes in the OAC group (EVT 6 [4-6] vs MM 5 [4-6], adjusted generalized odds ratio 0.89 [0.53-1.50]), but demonstrated significantly better outcomes in patients without OAC (EVT 4 [3-6] vs MM 5 [4-6], adjusted generalized odds ratio 1.87 [1.45-2.40], p = 0.02). The OAC group had higher comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation (70% vs 17%), congestive heart failure (28% vs 10%), and hypertension (87% vs 72%), suggesting increased frailty. However, the results were consistent after adjustment for these comorbidities, and was similar regardless of the type of OACs used. Whereas any hemorrhage rates were higher in the OAC group receiving EVT (86% in OAC vs 70% in no OAC), no parenchymal hemorrhage or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were observed with OAC use in both the EVT and MM arms. Although we did not find evidence that the effect was due to excess hemorrhage or confounded by underlying cardiac disease or older age, OAC use alone should not exclude patients from receiving EVT. Baseline comorbidities and ischemic injury extent should be considered while making individualized treatment decisions. ANN NEUROL 2024;96:887-894.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".