Early Goal-directed Therapy During Endovascular Coiling Procedures Following Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Pilot Prospective Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maintenance of euvolemia and cerebral perfusion are recommended for the prevention of cerebral vasospasm after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). We conducted a pilot randomized controlled study to assess the feasibility and efficacy of goal-directed therapy (GDT) to correct fluid and hemodynamic derangements during endovascular coiling in patients with aSAH. METHODS: This study was conducted between November 2015 and February 2019 at a single tertiary center in Canada. Adult patients with aSAH within 5 days of aneurysm rupture were randomly assigned to receive either GDT or standard therapy during endovascular coiling. The incidence of dehydration at presentation and the efficacy of GDT were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty patients were allocated to receive GDT (n=21) or standard therapy (n=19). Sixty percent of all patients were found to have dehydration before the coiling procedure commenced. Compared with standard therapy, GDT reduced the duration of intraoperative hypovolemia (mean difference 37.6 [95% confidence interval, 6.2-37.4] min, P=0.006) and low cardiac index (mean difference 30.7 [95% confidence interval, 9.5-56.9] min, P=0.035). There were no differences between the 2 treatment groups with respect to the incidence of vasospasm, stroke, death, and other complications up to postoperative day 90. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of aSAH patients presented at the coiling procedure with dehydration and a low cardiac output state; these derangements were more likely to be corrected if the GDT algorithm was used. Compared with standard therapy, use of the GDT algorithm resulted in earlier recognition and more consistent treatment of dehydration and hemodynamic derangement during endovascular coiling.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".