Safety and Effectiveness of Neuro-thrombectomy on Single compared to Biplane Angiography Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of centers not necessarily equipped with biplane (BP) angiosuites are performing mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke patients. We assessed whether MT performed on single-plane (SP) is equivalent in terms of safety, effectiveness, radiation and contrast agent exposure. Consecutive patients treated by MT in four high volume centers between January 2014 and May 2017 were included. Demographic and MT characteristics were assessed and compared between SP and BP. Of 906 patients treated by MT, 576 (64%) were handled on a BP system. After multivariate analysis, contrast load and fluoroscopy duration were significantly lower in the BP group [100vs200mL, relative effect 0.85 (CI: 0.79-0.92), p = 0.0002; 22 vs 27 min, relative effect 0.84 (CI: 0.76-0.93), p = 0.0008, respectively]. There was no difference in recanalization (modified Thrombolysis-In-Cerebral-Infarction 2b-3), good clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0-2), complications rates, procedure duration or radiation exposure. A three-vessel diagnostic angiogram performed prior to MT led to a significant increase in procedure duration (15% increase, p = 0.05), radiation exposure (33% increase, p < 0.0001) and contrast load (125% increase, p < 0.0001). Mechanical neuro-thrombectomy seems equally safe and effective on a single or biplane angiography system despite increased contrast load and fluoroscopy duration on the former.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".