MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1502147922 · doi:10.1161/str.45.suppl_1.wp12

Abstract W P12: Intra-procedural Hemodynamics in General Anesthesia versus Monitored Anesthesia Care During Endovascular Therapy for Acute Anterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke

2014· article· en· W1502147922 on OpenAlexaff
Seby John, Umera Thebo, Maher Saqqur, João Gomes, Ehab Farag, Muhammad Shazam Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationAnesthesiaHemodynamicsStroke (engine)Blood pressureIntracerebral hemorrhageCardiologyInternal medicineGlasgow Coma Scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Recent studies have identified general anesthesia (GA) as a predictor of poor outcome compared to non-intubated sedation techniques during intra-arterial therapy (IAT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Factors contributing to this difference are not well understood. Objective: Identify factors associated with poor outcome in patients receiving GA vs Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC). We speculated that peri-procedural blood pressure (BP) may be influenced by anesthesia and could plausibly contribute to differences in outcome. Methods: 190 patients who underwent IAT for anterior circulation AIS from 1/2008 to 12/2012 were included. Patients <18 years of age and posterior circulation AIS were excluded. Demographics, NIHSS, IV tPA use, use of GA/MAC, thrombus location, recanalization grade, post-procedure intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and 30-day outcomes were collected. Intra-procedural hemodynamics including maximum/minimum heart rate and systolic/diastolic/mean BP were collected. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and good outcome (mRS 0-2) at 30 days. Secondary outcomes were successful recanalization (TICI 2b-3) and ICH (PH1+2) based on ECASS definitions. Results: There were 91 and 99 patients in the GA and MAC groups respectively. Baseline characteristics including NIHSS scores were similar between both groups. The GA group had more ICA terminus occlusions (39.1% vs 18.2%, p = 0.043). There was significantly higher mortality (25.8% vs 13.3%, p = 0.040) and a trend towards poorer outcome (14.9% vs 22.8% with mRS 0-2, p = 0.239) in the GA group. Successful recanalization was higher in the GA group (57.1% vs 47.5%, p = 0.182), but the rate of PH1+2 ICH was significantly higher in the GA group (26.3% vs 10.1%, p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in intra-procedural hemodynamics, prior to or after recanalization. GA was an independent predictor of mortality and PH1+2 ICH. Conclusions: Patients placed under GA prior to IAT appear to have a higher probability of mortality and a trend towards poorer outcome. Outcome differences do not seem to be related to hemodynamic factors. There were significantly higher number of ICHs in the GA group and this could potentially be the factor driving the difference between outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→