Abstract TMP105: Endovascular Treatment of Severe and Refractory Cerebral Vasospasm Following Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Improves Outcome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Different Treatment Options Evaluated Since 2006 for Cerebral Vasospasm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: To report clinical outcome of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) patients exposed to cerebral vasospasm (CVS) targeted treatments in a systematic review and meta-analysis and compare the efficacy of endovascular and non-endovascular treatments in severe / refractory vasospasm patients. Methods: The literature was searched using PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library database. Eligibility criteria were (1) Rated clinical outcome; (2) at least 10 patients; (3) aSAH; (4) study published in English or French (January 2006 - October 2014); and (5) methodological quality score > 10, according to STROBE criteria. Endpoint included unfavorable outcome rate, defined as mRS 3-6, GOS 1-3 or GOSE 1-4 at latest follow-up. Analyses included stratification per route of administration (oral, i.v., intra-arterial or cisternoventricular) and per study inclusion criteria (severe, CVS, refractory CVS or high risk for CVS). Univariate and multivariate subgroup analyses were performed to identify interventions associated with a better outcome. Results: Sixty-two studies, including 26 randomized controlled trials, were included (8976 patients). Overall 2490 patients had unfavorable outcome including death (random-effect weighted average: 33.7%, 99%CI, 28.1-39.7%; Q-value: 806.0, I 2 =92.7%). Clinical outcome was significantly better in severe or refractory patients for whom, on top of best medical treatment, endovascular intervention was performed (RR=0.76, IC95% [0.66-0.89], p <0.00001) whereas other route of administration didn’t show significant differences. RR of unfavorable outcome was significantly lower, vs control groups, in patients treated with Cilostazol (RR=0.46 (IC99% [0.25-0.85], P = 0.001, Q value 1.5, I 2 = 0). Conclusion: In case of CVS following aSAH, endovascular treatment in severe / refractory vasospasm patients. including intra-arterial injection of pharmacological agents or balloon angioplasty, improves outcome as compared to other route of administration.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".