抽吸取栓与支架取栓治疗急性缺血性卒中有效性及安全性的meta分析（Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Aspiration Thrombectomy and Stent Retriever Thrombectomy in the Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke）
Bibliographic record
Abstract
目的 探讨抽吸取栓与支架取栓治疗急性缺血性卒中（acute ischemic stroke，AIS）的有效性及安全性。 方法 检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase、中国知网、万方、维普等中英文数据库，筛选比较抽吸取栓与支架取栓治疗AIS效果的研究。有效性指标包括90 d mRS评分、血管再通成功和穿刺至血管再通时间；安全性指标包括出血转化、90 d全因死亡和其他并发症（血管穿孔及夹层、血管痉挛、新发栓塞）。采用漏斗图对纳入研究进行偏倚风险评估。使用RevMan 5.3软件进行meta分析。 结果 共纳入35项研究，包括4865例患者。在有效性方面，抽吸取栓组的90 d mRS评分优于支架取栓组（OR 1.44，95%CI 1.03～2.00，P＝0.030），血管再通成功率高于支架取栓组（OR 1.50，95%CI 1.18～1.92，P＜0.001），穿刺至血管再通时间短于支架取栓组[标准化均数差（standardized mean difference，SMD）－6.57，95%CI －7.80～－5.34，P＜0.001]。在安全性方面，两种术式的出血转化率（OR 0.92，95%CI 0.76～1.12，P＝0.410）、90 d全因死亡率（OR 0.86，95%CI 0.64～1.16，P＝0.310）和其他并发症发生率（OR 0.91，95%CI 0.75～1.09，P＝0.330）的差异均无统计学意义。 结论 与支架取栓相比，抽吸取栓治疗AIS的安全性相似，但在血管再通成功率及短期预后方面具有一定的优势，且穿刺至血管再通时间较短。Abstract: Objective To explore the efficacy and safety of aspiration thrombectomy and stent retriever thrombectomy in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods Chinese and English databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, were searched to screen studies comparing the efficacy of aspiration thrombectomy and stent retriever thrombectomy in AIS. The efficacy indicators included 90-day mRS score, successful recanalization, and puncture-to-recanalization time. The safety indicators included hemorrhagic transformation, 90-day all-cause mortality, and other complications (vascular perforation/dissection, vasospasm, and new-onset embolism). The funnel plot was used to assess the risk of bias among the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 35 studies involving 4865 patients were included. In terms of efficacy, the aspiration thrombectomy group demonstrated superior 90-day mRS scores than the stent retriever thrombectomy group (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.03-2.00, P=0.030), higher successful recanalization rates than the stent retriever thrombectomy group (OR 1.50, 95%CI 1.18-1.92, P<0.001), and shorter puncture-to-recanalization time than the stent retriever thrombectomy group [standardized mean difference (SMD) -6.57, 95%CI -7.80--5.34, P<0.001]. In terms of safety, there were no statistically significant differences between the two techniques in hemorrhagic transformation rate (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.76-1.12, P=0.410), 90-day all-cause mortality (OR 0.86, 95%CI 0.64-1.16, P=0.310), and the rates of other complications (OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.75-1.09, P=0.330). Conclusions Compared with stent retriever thrombectomy, aspiration thrombectomy has similar safety for treating AIS, but has certain advantages in the successful recanalization rate and short-term prognosis, with a shorter puncture-to-recanalization time.
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 | 0.026 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".