Abstract P540: Safety of Carotid Artery Stenting Without Embolic Protection: A Single Centre Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: One of the most feared complications of carotid revascularization, including carotid artery stenting (CAS), is peri-procedural ischemic stroke. Several studies suggest that the use of a distal embolic protection device (EPD), as well as over-sized pre- and post-stenting balloon angioplasty, may increase the risk of dislodgement of atheromatous plaque in patients undergoing CAS. The CREST trial, that mandated the use of an EPD, had a peri-procedural ischemic stroke rate of 4.1%. We hypothesize that our technique of stenting without the use of an EPD and sub-maximal angioplasty will have a low risk of peri-procedural complications. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive cases of ICA stenting without use of an embolic protection device between January 2012 and June 2020 at a Canadian stroke centre. Data was extracted from the patient electronic medical record and Picture Archives and Communications Systems (PACS). Both symptomatic and asymptomatic CAS cases were included. Results: A total of 220 patients were included in the study, with a median age of 70 years (range 39-93 years), and 83 patients (38%) were female. The vast majority of patients were symptomatic (216 patients [98%]). A large portion of patients had a contralateral ICA occlusion or near occlusion (56 patients [25%]). In the majority of cases, a Precise Cordis RX carotid stent (Cordis) was placed. There were four patients with peri-procedural ischemic strokes (1.8%), with two occurring 8-30 days after stenting. There was one case of acute stent occlusion associated with an ischemic stroke. Two patients (less than 1%) had hyperperfusion syndrome after CAS. Median length of stay following the procedure was one day. Conclusions: In this single centre series, the peri-procedural risks of CAS without using an EPD are low. The ischemic stroke rate is less than 2%, lower than what has been reported in large randomized controlled trials using embolic protection.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".