MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982951252 · doi:10.1136/jnis.2010.003236.5

P-005 Anesthetic considerations and the role of blood pressure management in the endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke

2010· article· en· W1982951252 on OpenAlexaff
Bijoy K. Menon, Melinda Davis, César J. Herrera, Muneer Eesa, Andrew M. Demchuk, Mayank Goyal, David P. Archer, Michael D. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationThrombolysisAnesthesiaStroke (engine)Modified Rankin ScaleAnestheticPropofolBlood pressureSurgeryIschemic strokeCardiologyInternal medicineIschemiaMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Increasingly used in North America, endovascular thrombolysis for ischemic stroke results in high recanalization rates without a comparable increase in good clinical outcomes. Many neurointerventionalists prefer general anesthesia to keep patients still. The purpose of this study is to identify the role of anesthesia and any other associated periprocedural factors in determining clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular procedures for acute ischemic stroke. Methods We retrospectively studied patients who underwent open label intra-arterial procedures for stroke from 2003 to 2009 in our intra-arterial database. Data were collected from chart reviews and automated anesthesia records. We used the Houston Intra-arterial Therapy (HIAT) score (1 point for age >75 years; 1 for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score >18 and 1 point for glucose >150 mg/dl) for adjusting for baseline differences. The primary clinical outcome was modified Rankin Scale 0–2 at 3 months. Results 96 patients (67 males, median age 65 years) with median NIHSS 17 (range 12–20) were included in the study. The distribution of type of anesthesia was as follows: 48/96 general anesthesia, 44/96 conscious sedation (14) or local anesthesia only (30), and 4/96 undetermined. 7/48 (15%) in the general anesthesia group had good clinical outcome compared with 29/44 (66%) in the local anesthesia/conscious sedation group (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45). After adjusting for HIAT score and the presence or absence of any major anesthetic comorbidities, the general anesthesia group had significantly worse clinical outcome (p=0.001). Lower blood pressure correlated with poorer clinical outcomes in both anesthesia groups. The lowest mean systolic blood pressure in the general anesthesia group was 104 mm Hg compared with 135 mm Hg in the local anesthesia/conscious sedation group (p=0.0001). Conclusion The use of general anesthesia during endovascular procedures in acute ischemic strokes is associated with poorer clinical outcomes at 3 months. This could be because of lower periprocedural blood pressures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroInterventional SurgerySame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207