Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Intravenous Thrombolysis in Distal Medium Vessel Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Multinational Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to distal medium vessel occlusion (DMVO) remains uncertain, particularly in comparing the effectiveness of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) plus mechanical thrombectomy (MT) versus IVT alone. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy in DMVO patients treated with either MT-IVT or IVT alone. METHODS: This multinational study analyzed data from 37 centers across North America, Asia, and Europe. Patients with AIS due to DMVO were included, with data collected from September 2017 to July 2023. The primary outcome was functional independence, with secondary outcomes including mortality and safety measures such as types of intracerebral hemorrhage. RESULTS: The study involved 1,057 patients before matching, and 640 patients post-matching. Functional outcomes at 90 days showed no significant difference between groups in achieving good functional recovery (modified Rankin Scale 0-1 and 0-2), with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of 1.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 1.79; P=0.35) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.51; P>0.99), respectively. Mortality rates at 90 days were similar between the two groups (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.29; P=0.30). The incidence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was comparable, but any type of intracranial hemorrhage was significantly higher in the MT-IVT group (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.63; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that while MT-IVT and IVT alone show similar functional and mortality outcomes in DMVO patients, MT-IVT presents a higher risk of hemorrhagic complications, thus MT-IVT may not routinely offer additional benefits over IVT alone for all DMVO stroke patients. Further prospective randomized trials are needed to identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit from MT-IVT treatment in DMVO.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".