Predictors and Outcomes of Excellent Recanalization Versus Successful Recanalization After Thrombectomy in Proximal and Distal Medium Vessel Occlusion Strokes: A Multinational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Acute ischemic stroke arising from medium vessel occlusions (MeVO) poses substantial challenges in treatment and management. This study aims to elucidate the outcomes and factors contributing to achieving excellent recanalization (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [mTICI] 2c–3) versus successful recanalization (mTICI 2b) in patients with MeVO stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Methods We conducted a multinational study analyzing data from the MAD‐MT (Multicenter Analysis of Distal Medium Vessel Occlusions: Effect of Mechanical Thrombectomy) registry, encompassing 37 centers across North America, Asia, and Europe, collected between September 2017 and July 2023. The study included acute ischemic stroke patients with MeVO treated with MT, with or without intravenous thrombolysis, who achieved mTICI 2b–3 post‐MT. Results Among 1463 patients with successful recanalization (mTICI 2b–3), 523 achieved mTICI 2b recanalization, and 940 achieved mTICI 2c–3. Distal occlusions exhibited higher odds of excellent recanalization compared with proximal MeVO vessel occlusions (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.17–2.15; P = 0.003). Cardioembolic stroke pathogenesis was associated with a higher likelihood of excellent recanalization (1.67; 95% CI, 1.07–2.59; P = 0.018). Patients achieving mTICI 2c–3 recanalization demonstrated lower initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores, significant improvements in postprocedural National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale shift, and a higher percentage of favorable 90‐day outcomes compared with those with mTICI 2b. However, no significant difference in 90‐day mortality rates was observed. Conclusion This study underscores that among patients with MeVO stroke with successful recanalization (mTICI 2b–3) there is higher likelihood of achieving excellent recanalization (mTICI 2c–3) in distal occlusions and cardioembolic pathogenesis. mTICI 2c–3 scores post‐MT correlate with improved clinical outcomes compared with mTICI 2b, affirming the superiority of excellent recanalization over successful recanalization in patients with MeVO stroke. Further prospective studies and randomized controlled trials are warranted for validation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".