Abstract TP19: Impact of Single-Pass Complete Reperfusion on Clinical Outcomes in Emergent Large Vessel Occlusion (ELVO) Patients Treated With Mechanical Thrombectomy (MT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is mounting evidence indicating that first pass (FP) complete reperfusion (CR) may reduce peri-procedural complications for emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy (MT). We investigated the impact of device passes (DP) on the clinical outcomes of ELVO patients who achieved CR following treatment with MT in a high-volume tertiary care stroke center. Methods: Consecutive ELVO patients with CR (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction grades IIb/III) at the end of MT were evaluated during a five-year period. Baseline stroke severity was assessed by NIHSS-score. The numbers of DP during the procedure were documented. Standard safety outcomes included symptomatic Intracranial Hemorrhage (sICH) by SITS-MOST criteria and three-month mortality. Standard efficacy outcomes included neurological improvement at 24 hours (determined by the relative reduction in NIHSS-score compared to baseline) and functional improvement at three months [determined as the shift in modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores]. Results: Among 258 ELVO patients achieving CR during MT the rate of FPCR was 67% (n=173). Patients with FPCR had greater median relative NIHSS-reduction at 24 hours (46% vs. 33%; p=0.033), lower median mRS-scores at three months (2 vs. 3; p=0.034) and lower three-month mortality rates (12% vs. 26%; p=0.005) compared to the rest. The two groups did not differ in sICH rates (5% vs. 10%; p=0.200). FPCR was associated with lower odds of three-month mortality (OR:1.64; 95%:1.03-2.61; p=0.036) on multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for potential confounders (demographics, risk factors, occlusion site, collateral status, stroke severity, onset to groin puncture time, baseline blood pressure and serum glucose values). Conclusions: FPCR appears to impact favourably clinical outcomes in ELVO patients treated with MT. CR following FP results in greater neurological and functional improvement at 24 hours and 3 months respectively.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".