Antiplatelet therapy for prevention of thromboembolic complications in coiling-only procedures for unruptured brain aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose Thromboembolic events are recognized complications of aneurysm coiling. Objective To identify any protective effects of antiplatelet therapy use before coiling of unruptured aneurysms. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis of clinical studies published up to February 2019. We included studies reporting symptomatic thromboembolic events (defined as clinical stroke or transient ischemic attacks) in patients who received antiplatelet therapy before coiling of unruptured aneurysms using unassisted coiling, balloon assistance, or multiple microcatheters. We excluded ruptured aneurysms and those treated with stent coiling or flow diverters. Results We identified 14 studies (2486 patients). All were single-center studies and four were prospective. In three studies with a control (no treatment) arm, the pooled risk ratio for symptomatic thromboembolic events with versus without antiplatelet therapy was 0.33 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.92, p= 0.035). The cumulative risk of symptomatic thromboembolic events with single antiplatelet agents was 5.0% ‘56/1122’ (95% CI 1.6% to 8.4%, I 2 83.63%), and with dual or multiple agents 2.7% ‘33/1237’ (95% CI 1.0% to 3.0%, I 2 39.9%). The incidence of diffusion lesions was reported in seven studies. It was 50.5% ‘96/190’ (95% CI 7.3% to 93.9%, I 2 94.4%) with single agents compared with 43.9% ‘196/446’ (95% CI 25.9% to 61.9%, I 2 73.4%) with dual or multiple agents. Conclusion Periprocedural antiplatelet therapy was associated with a low symptomatic thromboembolic event after coiling-only for unruptured aneurysms. However, available evidence is of limited quality with significant heterogeneity, requiring evidence from randomized controlled trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".