Intra-arterial thrombolysis after successful endovascular reperfusion for large vessel occlusion stroke: A meta-analysis of randomized seven controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although thrombectomy is the standard of care for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large-vessel occlusion (LVO), many patients fail to achieve disability-free recovery, highlighting the need for adjunctive therapy to improve outcomes. Purpose This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) and placebo following the successful recanalization of AIS-LVO. Materials and Methods A systematic literature review of four databases was performed. Categorical and continuous outcomes were calculated using Risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively. Any potential heterogeneity was resolved through leave-one-out influence analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool. Our study was not registered in PROSPERO. The primary analysis included three published RCTs; four additional trials, including posterior circulation or preliminary data, were incorporated in sensitivity analyses to validate robustness. Results A total of three trials with enrolled patients 1187 were included in the study. Four additional trials were also included only for sensitivity analysis. The findings showed that patients who received IAT had a significantly higher rate of 90-day functional excellence (RR = 1.15, 95%CI = 1.01–1.3, P = .032, I 2 = 0.0%) than the control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding functional independence, mortality, symptomatic or any intracranial hemorrhage, and total adverse events. There was a significantly higher functional excellence rate in IAT group compared with control group in studies that included patients with expanded thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score (eTICI) score of 2b-3 versus 2c-3 (RR = 1.5, 95%CI = 1.23–1.82 P = .016, I 2 = 0.0%) and female patients derived more benefit from IAT than placebo (RR = 1.42, 95%CI = 1.15–1.75, P = .001, I 2 = 0.0%). Notably, there was no significant heterogeneity across any primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusion In patients with AIS-LVO presenting within 24 h of time last seen well who achieved successful endovascular recanalization, IAT significantly improved the likelihood of functional excellence at three months without hemorrhagic risk. Further research is warranted to validate these findings.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.047 | 0.075 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".