Bridging thrombolysis before endovascular therapy is associated with better outcomes in patients with large infarction core
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigates the efficacy and safety of bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) before endovascular therapy (EVT) compared with EVT alone in patients with large infarction core. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from January 2015 to June 2024. Included studies involved patients with acute ischemic stroke with an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score of ≤5 or an ischemic core volume of ≥50 mL. Studies were required to provide either 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, reperfusion, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), or 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Nine observational studies with 2641 patients were analyzed. The IVT+EVT group had a higher rate of 90-day functional independence (mRS 0-2; OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.87; adjusted OR (aOR) 1.43, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.68) and 90-day functional outcome (mRS 0-3; OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.62; aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37) compared with EVT alone. There was no significant difference in successful reperfusion (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.64; aOR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02; aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04) between the two groups. Moreover, patients who received IVT+EVT had a higher rate of sICH (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.64; aOR 2.21, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with large infarction core, bridging IVT before EVT is associated with favorable functional outcomes compared with EVT, even though bridging therapy entails a higher risk of sICH. Further trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".