Endovascular treatment for large vessel occlusion stroke in patients with ventricular assist devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Embolic stroke with large vessel occlusion (LVO) is a major adverse event during ventricular assist device (VAD) support. In this study we aimed to clarify the efficacy of, and problems associated with, endovascular treatment (EVT) of LVO in patients with VAD support. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed EVT for LVO in patients with VAD support between 2006 and 2017 at our institute and evaluated baseline characteristics, treatment variables, outcomes, and complications. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 12 consecutive patients (age 35.4±20.4 years), with 15 LVO events involving 20 arterial occlusions, who had undergone EVT. The median Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score was 10 and good collaterals were observed in 10 of 17 occluded middle cerebral artery areas. No study patients had received intravenous thrombolysis therapy. EVT was performed on 18 of the 20 occluded arteries and mechanical thrombectomy on 13 vessels. The successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction grade ≥2 b) rate was 67% in all EVTs and 85% with mechanical thrombectomy. Histological analysis showed fibrin-rich thrombi in four of five samples. Seven of 12 patients (58%) maintained their neurological function (modified Rankin Scale score ≤2 or equal to pre-stroke score) at 90 days. Periprocedural complications comprised two symptomatic intracranial hemorrhages and the 90-day mortality rate was 13%. Seven of 10 cardiac transplant candidates (70%) returned to the waiting list and three of them received transplants. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular therapy for acute LVO stroke is feasible even in patients with VAD support.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".