P.095 Clinical outcomes following carotid angioplasty and stenting in patients over age of 75: Careful patient selection overcoming the age-effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: CAS is reported to have higher complication rates in elderly compared to younger patients. This effect may be a surrogate for unfavourable anatomy (tortuosity, arch/access vessel atheroma burden) for endovascular treatment. We report our experience with 42 highly selected patients with favourable anatomy in spite of age. Methods: From a cohort of 217 consecutive patients undergoing CAS at St Michael’s Hospital from 2010-2016, stroke and a composite outcome of stroke, MI or death at 30 days post procedure was recorded. We compared outcomes in patients below and above the age of 75. Results: In 217 patients, 175 (80.7%) were below and 42 (19.3%) were above age 75 years. The stroke rate was 1.7% (n=3) and 2.4% (n=1), for patients below and above age 75 years respectively (p=0.58). The composite outcome rate was 4.0% (n=7) and 4.8% (n=2) for patients below and above age 75 years respectively (p=0.69). Conclusions: Patients without high-risk anatomic features were selected for CAS treatment. In this selected group, outcomes for those older than 75 years are comparable to the younger age category. Complication rates were comparable to the results in major randomized symptomatic carotid 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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".