Abstract P542: Management and Outcome of Stroke Patients With Tandem Carotid Occlusion in the ESCAPE NA1-Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The optimal treatment for stroke patients with tandem cervical carotid occlusion is debated. We analyzed the treatment strategies and outcomes of tandem occlusion patients in the ESCAPE NA1 trial. Methods: ESCAPE NA1 was a multicenter international randomized trial of nerinetide vs. placebo in patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent EVT. We defined tandem occlusions as complete occlusion of the cervical ICA on catheter angiography. The influence of tandem occlusions on outcome was analyzed using regression modeling with adjustment for age, sex, baseline NIHSS and ASPECTS, occlusion location, thrombolysis and treatment allocation. Results: 115 of 1105 patients (10.4%) had tandem occlusions. 73/115 tandem patients (66.0%) received treatment for the cervical occlusion: 21.9% were stented before thrombectomy, 68.5% were stented after thrombectomy, and 8.2% had angioplasty alone. Successful reperfusion was significantly higher in patients who had thrombectomy first followed by carotid treatment (eTICI 2b-3: 40/40 (100.0%)) or carotid angioplasty before and cervical stent after intracranial thrombectomy (9/10 (90.0%)) compared to carotid intervention before intracranial thrombectomy: (19/23 (82.1%), p=0.016). 90-day mRS 0-2 was achieved in 82/115 patients (71.3%) with tandem occlusions (treated occlusions: 74.0%, untreated: 66.7%) compared to 579/981 (59.5%) patients without tandem occlusions. In adjusted analysis, tandem occlusion was not predictive of outcome. In the subgroup of tandem patients, cervical stent-treatment was nominally associated with better outcomes (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.5 - 9.2). Conclusion: Cervical carotid stenting may improve outcomes for EVT patients with tandem occlusions, but these results are limited by the sample size and non-randomized selection of patients for stenting.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".