MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807216412 · doi:10.1097/ana.0000000000000514

Hemodynamic Management of Patients During Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke Under Conscious Sedation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2018· article· en· W2807216412 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriela Alcaráz, Jason Chui, Joanna D. Schaafsma, Pirjo Manninen, Andreu Porta‐Sánchez, Vítor Mendes Pereira, Lashmi Venkatraghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodynamicsAnesthesiaSedationBlood pressureOdds ratioRetrospective cohort studyCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Anesthetic modality and hemodynamic management during mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) are potential contributors to the success of revascularization. The aims of our study were to review the hemodynamic management by anesthesiologists and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MT under conscious sedation. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with anterior circulation AIS from January 2012 to March 2016. Primary outcome was hemodynamic intervention, defined as administration of vasoactive drugs to maintain systolic blood pressure (BP) between 140 and 180 mm Hg. The secondary outcome was poor hemodynamic control, defined as BP outside target for >15 minutes despite hemodynamic intervention. We performed regression analysis to determine the predictors of hemodynamic intervention and poor hemodynamic control. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were included in this study; 92% (116) receiving conscious sedation and 8% (10) no sedation. Upon arrival to the neuroradiology suite, systolic BP was <140 mm Hg in 30.2% of the patients and >180 mm Hg in 14.3%. Hemodynamic intervention was required in 38.9% of patients; 15.1% for hypotension and 19.8% for hypertension. In the multivariate analysis, systolic BP on hospital admission (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.04; P=0.019) constituted a predictor for hemodynamic intervention. Poor hemodynamic control occurred in 12.7% of patients, with lower baseline systolic BP being associated with higher risk of intraprocedural hypotension (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.96; P<0.001). In-hospital mortality was 13.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic intervention is frequent during MT under conscious sedation. The routine presence of anesthesiologists during MT may be helpful in maintaining hemodynamic stability and allow rapid treatment of emergent complications. An individualized approach with tailored hemodynamic targets is required during management of patients undergoing MT for AIS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgical AnesthesiologySame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207