Intensive Care Management Following Endovascular Clot Retrieval for Acute Stroke: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There has been an increase in the number of patients requiring ICU care following endovascular clot retrieval (ECR) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The authors’ objective was to systematically assess the evidence surrounding postprocedural care of ECR patients in critical care areas. A systematic literature review was conducted examining the critical care management of adult patients following ECR. The preliminary search results were sorted manually by two authors and conflicts were settled by consensus with a third reviewer. References of key papers were also reviewed for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. In addition, the authors sought to identify all relevant practice guidelines from major neurological and critical care societies. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, Web of Science, and bibliographies of retrieved articles were searched. Studies were limited to human subjects and English language. Studies specific to the post ECR population were limited. In the initial Medline search, 3,882 papers were returned. A total of 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were also 10 practice guidelines from relevant scientific bodies. The level of evidence for postprocedural care was found to be variable and mostly based on expert opinion and data extrapolated from general stroke and postthrombolysis patients. There is limited evidence guiding the postprocedural care of ECR patients. Given the increase in both the availability and application of ECR, trials looking specifically at how best to care for this patient population are needed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".