Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
We thank the authors of the comment on our recent publication in the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery,1 which described our single-center endeavor to identify predictors of large vessel recanalization (LVR) and our proposal of the HALT score. We appreciate the acknowledgment that the HALT score may serve as a helpful tool to optimize acute stroke triage and for decisions to administer thrombolytic agents. We also thank the editor for the opportunity to respond to concerns raised within the comment.
First, while our model suggested that patients with vertebrobasilar artery occlusions had a higher likelihood of recanalization compared with other sites of vascular occlusion, this population represented a small portion of our study cohort, and thus the results should not be over-interpreted. We carefully addressed this surprising finding in our discussion section and proposed likely explanations for this observation. The comment aptly pointed out the meta-analysis of LVR by Seners et al,2 which reported a lower rate of recanalization for patients with basilar occlusions. In their study, only 49 of 2063 patients with large vessel occlusio (LVO) identified in the literature had basilar occlusions, which was only marginally greater than the 35 of 640 patients in our study. Given the low numbers published in our study and the past literature, it is unclear if differences in LVR rates were due to chance or reflected true discrepancies. More importantly, we performed a sensitivity analysis of the HALT score excluding posterior circulation strokes, and the …
Contributors HC wrote the manucript. MC, and DG critically revised the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.