MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008270309 · doi:10.1161/jaha.119.014447

Endovascular Treatment of Very Elderly Patients Aged ≥90 With Acute Ischemic Stroke

2020· article· en· W3008270309 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lukas Meyer, Maria Eleni Alexandrou, Fabian Flottmann, Milani Deb‐Chatterji, Nuran Abdullayev, Volker Maus, Maria Politi, Kathleen Bernkopf, Christian Roth, Andreas Kastrup, Uta Hanning, Caspar Brekenfeld, Götz Thomalla, Christian Gerloff, Anastasios Mpotsaris, Panagiotis Papanagiotou, Jens Fiehler, Hannes Leischner, Silke Wunderlich, Tobias Boeckh‐Behrens, Arno Reich, Martin Wiesmann, Ulrike Ernemann, Till‐Karsten Hauser, Eberhard Siebert, Christian H. Nolte, Sarah Zweynert, Georg Böhner, Alexander Ludolph, Karl‐Heinz Henn, Waltraud Pfeilschifter, Marlis Wagner, Joachim Röther, Bernd Eckert, Jörg Berrouschot, Albrecht Bormann, Anna Alegiani, Elke Hattingen, Gabor C. Petzold, Sven Thonke, Christopher Bangard, Christoffer Kraemer, Martin Dichgans, Frank A. Wollenweber, Lars Kellert, Franziska Dorn, Moriz Herzberg, Marios Psychogios, Jan Liman, Martina Petersen, Florian Stögbauer, Peter Kraft, Mirko Pham, Michael Braun, Gerhard F. Hamann, Klaus Gröschel, Timo Uphaus, Volker Limmroth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisModified Rankin ScaleStroke (engine)Odds ratioInternal medicineCohortCerebral infarctionLogistic regressionAdverse effectSurgeryMyocardial infarctionIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Patients aged ≥90 were excluded or under‐represented in past thrombectomy trials; thus, uncertainty remains whether treatment benefits can be expected regardless of age. This study investigates outcome and safety of thrombectomy in nonagenarians to improve decision making in a real‐world setting. Methods and Results All currently available data of patients aged ≥90 enrolled in the GSR‐ET (German Stroke Registry–Endovascular Treatment) were combined with a smaller cohort from 3 tertiary stroke centers. Baseline characteristics, procedural (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale) and functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale; mRS ), as well as complications (symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, serious adverse events; SAEs) were analyzed. Good functional outcome was defined as mRS ≤3 at 90‐days. 203 patients with anterior circulation stroke and prestroke mRS ≤3 were included. The rate of successful recanalization (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale ≥2b) was 75.9% (154/203). Good functional outcome ( mRS ≤3) was observed in 21.6% (41 of 193) at 90‐days. In‐hospital mortality was 27.1% (55 of 203) and increased significantly at 90 days to 48.9% (93 of 190; P <0.001). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 3% (6 of 203) of patients. Logistic regression analysis identified Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (adjusted odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI , 1.01–3.70; P =0.046) and initial National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI , 0.76–0.97; P =0.014) as independent predictors for good outcome. Patients with successful recanalization had a significant ( P =0.001) shift of mRS distribution with higher rates of good functional outcomes (23.8% [34 of 143] versus 14.9% [7 of 47]) and lower mortality at 90‐days (46.8% [67 of 143] versus 55.3% [26 of 47]). Conclusions Despite high mortality and less frequent favorable outcome, our data suggest that thrombectomy is still effective and safe for nonagenarians. Decision making for thrombectomy in patients aged ≥90 should be based on a case‐by‐case basis with regard to initial National Institute of Health Stroke Scale and Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207