MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

E-145 Saskatchewan experience with mechanical thrombectomy under general anaesthesia

2019· article· en· W3021060963 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amit Persad, Syed Uzair Ahmed, Zane Tymchak, R Whelan, A. I. Gardner, Gary Hunter, Brett Graham, Lissa Peeling, Michael Kelly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisStroke (engine)RevascularizationGroinSurgeryRandomized controlled trialCollateral circulationCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background While recent clinical trials have demonstrated immense efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy in the setting of acute stroke; there remains debate over the relative safety in performing this procedure under general anesthesia (GA). Recent RCT and meta-analyses have not provided a definitive answer to this question. With the reorganization of stroke systems of care, as a result of the Saskatchewan Acute Stroke Pathway, all patients presenting with LVO are assessed and endovascular thrombectomy is performed routinely under GA. We reviewed data from our pathway to add to the data regarding safety of thrombectomy under GA. Methods Data was retrospectively reviewed on 154 consecutive LVO in 2016–2018 at the only Comprehensive stroke center in Saskatchewan. All patients undergoing MT were place under GA for the procedure. Pretreatment National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS), location of LVO and ASPECTS score were documented. Post-thrombectomy TICI scores, time to revascularization, and 90-day outcomes, both NIHSS and mRS, were recorded. Results Of 154 LVO, 147 went on to have mechanical thrombectomy (MT). 65 were right anterior circulation, 70 were left anterior circulation and 11 were posterior circulation. Of 135 anterior circulation strokes, 69 (51.1%), 58 (42.9%) and 8 (5.7%) had good, moderate and poor collateral circulation respectively, and the average pre-MT ASPECTS was 8.2. The average pre-MT NIHSS was 13.4. The average time from groin puncture to revascularization was 48.7 min. A total of 133/147 (90.4%) achieved thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) perfusion scale grade of 2b/3 after recanalization. On follow-up, 70/147 and 90/147 had documented 90-day National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) (average = 2.4) and 90-day modified Rankin score (mRS) (average = 2.2). Overall mortality was 29/147 (19.7%). Conclusions In a high volume Comprehensive Stroke Center, general anesthesia is safe to always use mechanical thrombectomy. Outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy for LVO in are in keeping with published results for both conscious sedation and general anesthesia. This adds to the body of evidence supporting GA as a excellent option for sedation for mechanical thrombectomy. It is particularly useful in more complex cases and leads to high revascularization rates. Disclosures A. Persad: None. S. Ahmed: None. Z. Tymchak: None. R. Whelan: None. A. Gardner: None. G. Hunter: None. B. Graham: None. L. Peeling: 2; C; Medtronic. M. Kelly: 2; C; Medtronic.

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)0.004
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 score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→