Platelet inhibition strategies in rescue stenting after failed thrombectomy: a large retrospective multicenter registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Rescue stenting (RS) is a bailout strategy for failed thrombectomy. Optimal platelet inhibition strategy after RS remains unclear. Objectives: We aimed to describe and compare different platelet inhibition strategies during/after RS. Design: Retrospective cohort study across 34 international centers. Methods: Patients with large vessel occlusion and RS after failed thrombectomy (2019–2023) were included. Periprocedural and postprocedural platelet inhibition strategies were described and compared, focusing on glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GPIIb/IIIa) inhibitors, single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT), and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We assessed the effects of platelet inhibition strategy and potentially covariates on the primary outcome of 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) using ordinal shift analysis with proportional odds models. Results: RS was performed in 589 patients (mean age 67.9 years, 60.8% male). Numerous combinations of platelet inhibitors were administered. Periprocedural GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in 61.5% of patients. Postprocedural DAPT was administered to 80.5% and SAPT to 13.3%. Functional independence (mRS 0–2) was achieved in 40.7%, while 26.3% died within 90 days. Stent occlusion occurred in 20.5%, with 67.6% of these occlusions within 24 h. Postprocedural stent-occlusion was independently associated with worse functional outcome at 90 days (OR 4.1, 95% CI 2.3–7.2, p < 0.001). No significant association between periprocedural GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors, and 90-day mRS or stent occlusion was found. Postprocedural SAPT was associated with worse functional outcomes (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.4, 95% CI 1.1–5.0, p = 0.02), higher mortality (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.05–4.0, p = 0.03), and increased stent occlusion rates (aOR 4.8, 95% CI 2.3–9.7, p < 0.001) compared to postprocedural DAPT. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 6.8% of patients, with no significant difference between antiplatelet regimens. Conclusion: Extensive heterogeneity exists in platelet inhibition strategies following RS. Stent occlusion is associated with worse clinical outcomes, and the first 24 h post-RS are critical for stent patency. Compared to SAPT, DAPT was associated with better functional outcome, lower mortality, and lower stent occlusion rates.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".