Angioplasty as an Adjuvant Therapy for the Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different endovascular techniques can be employed to achieve vessel recanalization in acute stroke. We assessed whether an endovascular strategy that included angioplasty was safe and effectively recanalized acutely occluded intracranial vessels. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 70 patients that received intra-arterial therapy for acute stroke. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they had received angioplasty as part of their endovascular treatment. RESULTS: Angioplasty was used in the treatment of 35/70 patients (50%). Median baseline NIHSS was 15. The site of occlusion was at the M1 in 11 patients, M1/M2 in 3, ICA/M1 in 13 and vertebrobasilar in 8 patients. Intravenous thrombolysis was administered to 16/35 patients (46%). Angioplasty was used alone in 4 patients, in combination with intra-arterial thrombolysis in 27 and with a mechanical retrieval device or stent in 13 patients. Recanalization (TICI 2-3) was achieved in 23/35 patients (66%). Median time from symptom onset to recanalization was six hours. In patients where angioplasty was employed, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 2/35 (6%), which was similar to patients that were not treated with angioplasty. A favorable functional outcome (mRS=2) was achieved in 20% (7/35) at 24 hour and 34% (12/35) at one month. All patients that had a favorable outcome had recanalized. CONCLUSION: In this small cohort, an endovascular treatment strategy that employed angioplasty was safe and effectively recanalized acutely occluded intracranial vessels. Angioplasty should be considered as a potential treatment option in interventional acute stroke trials.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".