Abstract WP57: Acute Carotid Stenting Following Intracranial Thrombectomy Has Comparable Safety and Efficacy in Early versus Late Time Window Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is beneficial in late time window stroke. However, patients with tandem extracranial carotid and intracranial occlusions are under-represented in previous trials. We analysed our acute anterior circulation strokes with tandem occlusions treated with EVT and extracranial internal carotid artery stenting. Methods: A prospectively maintained database of EVT patients treated in two Australian comprehensive stroke centres between January 2016 and May 2019 was screened for acute anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients treated with EVT and extracranial internal carotid artery stenting. The cohort was divided into patients treated in early ( < 6 hours from symptom onset) and late (>6 hours from symptom onset) time windows. Results: Endovascular thrombectomy with acute carotid stenting was performed in 96 patients (mean age 71years, 78.3% male, mean time to reperfusion 13.5 +/- 10.1 hours, median NIHSS 15). Treatment >6hours after symptom onset occurred in 61 (63.5%) patients. No significant difference was seen between the two groups with respect to age, sex, presenting NIHSS, or mTICI score. At 90-day follow-up, good functional outcome (mRS 0-2) was similar for patients treated in the late versus early time windows, 19 (54.3%) vs 34 (55.7%), p=0.89 respectively. No difference was seen for symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, 5 (7.2%) vs 3 (8.1%) p=0.87, or mortality at 90-day follow-up, 15 (24.6%) vs 6 (17.1%) p=0.40. Conclusion: Carotid stenting in late time window has comparable safety and efficacy to early time window stroke.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".