A multicenter, propensity score-matched analysis of functional outcomes and recanalization success with or without Trevo for Medium and distal vessel occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundEndovascular therapy (EVT) for stroke due to distal or medium vessel occlusion (DMVO) is safe. Due to the distinct anatomical characteristics of DMVOs, further evaluation of EVT is crucial to determine which devices may yield better outcomes.MethodsA retrospective analysis of adults with DMVO treated in 37 centers (11 countries) was queried. The primary outcome of favorable shift in 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) was compared between patients treated with Trevo versus other devices on first pass using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) with multivariable adjustment. Secondary outcomes included the number of pass attempts, final thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) score 2b-3, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), improvement in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at 24h, and 90-day mortality.ResultsOf the 1115 included patients, 264 (24%) were treated with Trevo (PSM cohort of 261 per group). Trevo use was not associated with a favorable 90-day mRS shift (proportional odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.51). Trevo was associated with fewer passes (adjusted β=-0.25, 95% CI -0.48 - -0.03), higher odds of TICI 2b-3 (adjusted OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.11-3.49), and a greater 24h NIHSS improvement (adjusted β= -1.74, 95% CI -3.11 - -0.36), with no difference in sICH or mortality (p>0.05). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsWe observed no safety concerns with Trevo as compared to other EVT devices for DMVO recanalization. There was a signal of better technical efficacy and early clinical improvement.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".