Natural Evolution of Incomplete Reperfusion in Patients Following Endovascular Therapy After Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A third of endovascularly treated patients with stroke experience incomplete reperfusion (expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction [eTICI] <3), and the natural evolution of this incomplete reperfusion remains unknown. We systematically reviewed the literature and performed a meta-analysis on the natural evolution of incomplete reperfusion after endovascular therapy. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed up until March 1, 2024, using a predefined strategy. Only full-text English-written articles reporting rates of either favorable (ie, delayed reperfusion (DR) or no new infarct) or unfavorable progression (ie, persistent perfusion deficit or new infarct) of incompletely reperfused tissue were included. The primary outcome was the rate of DR and its association with functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score, 0-2) at 90 days postintervention. Pooled odds ratios with 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Six studies involving 950 patients (50.7% female; median age, 71 years; interquartile range, 60-79) were included. Four studies assessed the evolution of incomplete reperfusion on magnetic resonance imaging perfusion imaging, while 2 studies used diffusion-weighted imaging and noncontrast computed tomography imaging, where new infarct was used to denote unfavorable progression. Five studies defined incomplete reperfusion as eTICI 2b50 or 2c. DR occurred in 41% (interquartile range, 33%-51%) of cases 24 hours postintervention. Achieving DR was associated with a higher likelihood of functional independence at 90 days (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.9-3.4]). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of eTICI <3 patients achieve DR, leading to favorable clinical outcomes. This subgroup may derive limited or potentially harmful effects from pursuing additional reperfusion strategies (eg, intra-arterial lytics or secondary thrombectomy). Accurately predicting the evolution of incomplete reperfusion could optimize patient selection for adjunctive reperfusion strategies at the end of an intervention. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT05499832.
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 | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".