Simultaneous Bilateral Carotid Stenting in High-Risk Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of SBCAS have not been evaluated in detail. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the outcome after SBCAS in high-risk patients compared with unilateral stent placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March 2002 and October 2008, a total of 205 consecutive high-risk patients underwent CAS at our institution. Of these patients, 30 (14.6%) underwent SBCAS ( n = 24) and staged SBCAS ( n = 6). Patients who underwent unilateral CAS ( n = 175) during the same period served as controls. The stroke risk factors, procedural results, and outcome at 30 days and 6 months, as well as the restenosis rate at 6 months, were compared by using either the χ2 test or the Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test. RESULTS: Our data revealed no significant differences in the stroke risk factors between the SBCAS and the control group. HPS occurred more commonly in SBCAS (ie, 16.7%, 4/24) compared with 2.9% (5/175) in the control group ( P = .014). However, there was no statistical significance between 2 groups in the event rate of stroke (minor and/or major stroke), death, or restenosis at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in outcome at 6 months following stent placement between SBCAS and unilateral CAS in the high-risk patient group, even though HPS occurred more commonly after SBCAS. BP : blood pressure CAS : carotid artery stent placement CEA : carotid endarterectomy CCS : Canadian Cardiovascular Society FEV : forced expiratory volume HD : hemodynamic depression HPS : hyperperfusion syndrome mRS : modified Rankin scale NASCET : North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial NIHSS : National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale NYHA : New York Heart Association SBCAS : simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stent placement TIA : transient ischemic attack
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".