Abstract P550: Incidence, Predictors and Impact of Emboli in New Territory in Escape NA1 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Emboli in new territory (ENT) are known potential complication of endovascular thrombectomy. We explored their incidence and predictors in ESCAPE-NA-1 trial. Methods: We included patients from the ESCAPE-NA1: a multicenter, international randomized study that assessed the efficacy of intravenous nerinetide in patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent EVT within 12 hours from onset. All the imaging was reassessed, and ENT was defined as angiographic evidence of emboli in vascular territories other than the MCA, which was not present in the initial CT angiogram. We collected details of management and its influence on outcomes. Results: We analyzed 1095 patients from the ESCAPE NA1. ENT occurred in 40 patients (3.6%, mean age 69.5 years, 50% females). There were no significant differences at baseline in groups with and without ENT. Most common ENT site was ACA (38,95%). Thrombolysis, use of balloon guide catheter, nerinetide treatment, and initial occlusion site did not predict ENT. Seven ENTs (17.5%) were pursued with endovascular therapy: retrievable stents in 6 patients and intra-arterial thrombolysis in 1 patient. Patients with ENT had longer total arterial puncture to first reperfusion times (65 vs 40.5 minutes, P<0.001), and a higher final median infarct volume compared to those without ENT (77.9 vs 24.2, P<0.001). On multivariable analysis, presence of ENT was a negative predictor of clinical outcome (mRS 0-2) after adjustment for age, sex, NIHSS, ASPECTS and successful reperfusion (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.13-0.55). Conclusion: The incidence of ENT was low in ESCAPE NA1 trial but associated with poorer clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".