Transradial access in acute ischemic stroke intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the feasibility and safety of transradial access (TRA) in the interventional management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). METHODS: A retrospective review of the local institutional AIS interventional databases of three tertiary academic centers was performed and the use of TRA identified. RESULTS: TRA was attempted in 15 (1.5%) of 1001 patients; it was used in 12 cases due to transfemoral access (TFA) failure and in 3 as the primary strategy. The mean age was 72.3±8.6 and 46% were male. Baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 19.5±8.7, two patients (14%) received intravenous tissue plasminogen activator, and mean time from last known normal to intra-arterial therapy was 17.0±20.1 h. Five patients had anterior circulation occlusive disease and 10 had vertebrobasilar occlusions. TRA was effective in allowing clot engagement in 13 of 15 cases: one patient had a hypoplastic radial artery that precluded sheath advancement and one had chronic innominate artery occlusion that could not be crossed. Mean time to switch from TFA to TRA was 1.9±1.3 h and the mean time from radial puncture to reperfusion was 2.2±1.0 h. Modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction 2b-3 reperfusion via TRA was achieved in 9 of 15 patients (60%). No radial puncture site complications were noted. At 90 days, two patients (13%) had a good clinical outcome and seven (50%) had died. CONCLUSIONS: Failure of TFA in the endovascular treatment of AIS is uncommon but leads to unacceptable delays in reperfusion and poor outcomes. Standardization of benchmarks for access switch could serve as a guide for neurointerventionalists. TRA is a valid approach for the endovascular treatment of AIS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".