Abstract 258: Efficacy and Safety of Trans‐radial Versus Trans‐femoral Access for Mechanical Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Mechanical thrombectomy for ischemic stroke has traditionally been performed via transfemoral access (TFA). However, newer literature on the subject suggests that trans‐radial access (TRA) may be equally efficacious. Materials and Methods Using relevant keywords, online databases (including Pubmed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane) were queried from inception until May 2024. Abstracts and full texts were screened according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to shortlist studies that met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessment was performed according to the New Castle Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. All dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RevMan software was used to perform the statistical analysis. Results Thirteen observational studies and one randomized clinical trial were included in this meta‐analysis. The total sample size was 4973, of which 4074 patients (81.2%) were included in the TFA group and 899 (18.8%) were included in the TRA group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of successful recanalization (OR=0.92; 95% CI 0.66‐1.27; p =0.60), first‐pass recanalization (OR=0.84; 95% CI 0.69‐1.01, p =0.06), access to reperfusion time (mean difference ‐2.99 minutes; 95% CI ‐8.33 to 2.44, p =0.27) and favorable functional outcome. Mortality and rates of intracranial hemorrhage were comparable between the two groups as well, but access site complications were significantly lower in the TRA group (OR=0.57; 95% CI 0.37‐0.88; p =0.01). Conclusion Trans‐radial access for thrombectomy in large vessel acute ischemic strokes is comparable to trans‐femoral access in terms of efficacy and has a lower incidence of access site complications. Randomized clinical trial data on head‐to‐head comparison of two techniques is limited, underscoring the importance of conducting pragmatic clinical trials.
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".