First clinical experience with the new Surpass Evolve flow diverter: technical and clinical considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the results in patients treated with the Surpass Evolve (SE) device, the new generation of Surpass flow diverters. METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients (20 women, average age 58 years), with anterior or posterior circulation aneurysms treated with SEs in two early-user centers, were included. Device properties and related technical properties, imaging and clinical follow-up data, and intraprocedural, early (<30 days) and delayed (>30 days) neurological complications, further divided into minor (silent/non-permanent) and major (permanent) complications, were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine SEs were successfully implanted in all subjects to treat 26 aneurysms using an 0.027" microcatheter with an average of 1.2 stents per patient. No intraprocedural thromboembolic or hemorrhagic complications were seen. At clinical follow-up, 24/25 (96%) patients had a modified Rankin Score of 0-2. Mortality was 0%. Imaging follow-up, available in 22/25 (88%) patients (median follow-up time 4 months), showed a complete aneurysm occlusion in 13/23 (57%) imaged lesions. Minor, transitory neurological deficits were recorded in 5/25 (20%) patients. One (4%) major complication was seen in one patient (4%) with a left-sided hemispheric stroke on postprocedural day 4 due to an acute stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary experience in patients demonstrates a good performance of the SE. This newly designed implant maintains the engineering characteristics of Surpass flow diverters, including precise placement due to its lower foreshortening and a high mesh density, yet can be deployed through a significantly lower-profile delivery system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".