The hemorrhage risk of prophylactic external ventricular drain insertion in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients requiring endovascular aneurysm treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Endovascular treatment of acutely ruptured aneurysms requires the administration of antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant medication to prevent thrombosis. For patients who require an external ventricular drain (EVD) insertion to treat hydrocephalus stemming from aneurysm subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), the administration of the medication may increase risk of hemorrhage in patients. It has become a practice for neurosurgeons to insert EVDs in patients with aSAH before endovascular treatment. However, the benefits and risks of this practice have not been fully assessed. The aim of this study was to compare and quantify the hemorrhagic risks associated with endovascular treatment of patients with sSAH before and after EVD. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. The literature was searched for studies with EVD and non-EVD patients with ruptured aneurysms undergoing endovascular treatment of aneurysms. A qualitative and quantitative assessment of EVD-related hemorrhage risk before and after endovascular treatment was undergone. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: There seemed to be a stronger correlation between EVD-related hemorrhage and EVD insertion after endovascular treatment (cumulative relative risk: 9.61; 95% CI: 2.29, 40.24) compared to EVD insertion before endovascular treatment (cumulative relative risk: 2.37; 95% CI: 0.57, 9.81). CONCLUSIONS: EVD-related hemorrhage risk may increase with administration of antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant medication for endovascular treatment of ruptured aneurysms in aSAH patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".