Hemodynamic instability during carotid artery stenting: the relative contribution of stent deployment versus balloon dilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Hemodynamic instability may complicate carotid angioplasty and stenting in up to 40% of patients. The authors have previously demonstrated that primary self-expanding stent placement alone can gradually dilate severely stenosed carotid arteries without the use of balloons. The authors hypothesized that eliminating the balloon would reduce carotid baroreceptor stimulation, thereby decreasing the incidence of hemodynamic instability. METHODS: Ninety-seven high surgical risk patients with symptomatic, severely stenosed carotid arteries were treated with the intention of using a self-expanding stent alone. Seventy-seven arteries (79%) were treated with stenting alone, and 20 required angioplasty (21%). RESULTS: Intraprocedural bradycardia (heart rate < 60 bpm) developed in 29 patients (38%) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg) occurred in 1 patient (1%) treated with stenting alone. Fourteen patients (70%) who underwent angioplasty and stenting had bradycardia, and hypotension developed in 4 (20%). Atropine, glycopyrrolate, or vasopressors were required in 8% of patients who received stenting alone, compared to 30% of patients who underwent angioplasty. In the first 24 hours after treatment, hypotension or bradycardia developed in 25 patients (32%) who had undergone stent placement alone, and in 15 patients (75%) after stent placement and balloon angioplasty. There was no difference in the occurrence of intra- or postprocedural hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 160 mm Hg) between patients treated with stenting alone or stenting and balloons. Factors independently associated with hemodynamic depression included baseline heart rate and balloon use. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic instability during and after carotid artery stenting was observed more frequently when balloon angioplasty was required than when stent placement was performed without concurrent balloon angioplasty.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".