Endovascular treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke presenting beyond 6 h after symptom onset: An international multicenter cohort study of the EVA-TRISP collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: After positive findings in clinical trials the time window for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for patients with an acute ischemic stroke has been expanded up to 24 h from symptom onset or last seen well (LSW). We aimed to compare EVT patients’ characteristics and outcomes in the early versus extended time window and to compare outcomes with the DAWN and DEFUSE 3 trial results. Patients and methods: Consecutive EVT patients from 16 mostly European comprehensive stroke centers from the EVA-TRISP cohort were included. We compared rates of 90-day good functional outcomes (Modified Rankin Scale 0–2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), and 90-day mortality between patients treated in the early (<6 h after onset or LSW) versus extended (6–24 h after onset or LSW) time windows. Results: We included 9313 patients, of which 6876 were treated in the early and 2437 in the extended time window. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at presentation was lower in patients treated in the extended time window (median 13 [IQR 7–18] vs 15 [IQR 9–19], p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with good functional outcome was slightly lower in the extended time window (37.4% vs 42.2%, p < 0.001). However, rates of successful recanalization, sICH, and mortality were similar. Good functional outcome rates after EVT were slightly lower for patients in the extended window in the EVA-TRISP cohort as compared to DAWN and DEFUSE 3. Discussion and conclusion: According to this large multicenter cohort study reflecting daily clinical practice, EVT use in the extended time window appears safe and effective.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".