Abstract WP15: Safety of Dual Antiplatelet Treatment in Emergent Large Vessel Occlusion (ELVO) Patients Treated With Mechanical Thrombectomy (MT) and Extracranial Internal Carotid Artery Stenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Extracranial Internal carotid artery (ExICA) stenting may be required during mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for anterior circulation large vessel occlusions (ACLVO) with coexisting ExICA steno-occlusive disease. We sought to evaluate the safety of acute dual antiplatelet therapy (DAP) in this high-risk MT subgroup. Methods: Consecutive ACLVO patients treated with MT were evaluated during a five-year period. All patients receiving ExICA stenting during MT were also acutely treated with DAP coupled with heparin or eptifibatide drips. Baseline stroke severity and early hypodensity on baseline CT were assessed using NIHSS-score and ASPECTS. Complete reperfusion (CR) was defined as modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction grades IIb/III) at the end of MT. Final infarct volume (FIV) on brain MRI was assessed at 24-48 hours using standardized methodology. Safety outcomes included symptomatic Intracranial Hemorrhage (sICH) documented by SITS-MOST criteria, infarct in new unaffected territory (INT) determined according to ESCAPE trial methodology and three-month mortality. We also assessed 3-month functional outcomes using modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores. Results: Among 309 ACLVO patients treated with MT, 24 received additional ExICA stenting. Eptifibatide and heparin drips were administered in 15 (65% of stenting subgroup: 9 patients: aspirin + clopidogrel, 6 patients: aspirin + ticagrelor) and 8 (35% of stenting subgroup: 6 patients: aspirin + clopidogrel, 2 patients: aspirin + ticagrelor) cases respectively. Patients with and without ExICA stenting had similar (p>0.1) median baseline NIHSS-scores (15 vs. 16 points) and ASPECTS (10 vs. 10 points). The two groups did not differ (p>0.1) in terms of median FIV (20 vs. 15 cm 3 ) and median 3-month mRS-scores (2 vs. 2). Patients with ExICA stenting had similar (p>0.1) rates of sICH (5% vs. 8%), INT (0% vs. 9%), CR (74% vs. 70%) and 3-month mRS-scores of 0-2 (55% vs. 51%) compared to the rest. Conclusions: DAP coupled with eptifibatide or heparin drips does not appear to increase peri-procedural complications or to worsen clinical outcome of ELVO patients treated with MT and ExICA stenting.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".