Abstract P490: Influence of Balloon Guide Catheter Use on Procedural & Clinical Outcomes in the Escape-NA1 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We assessed whether balloon guide catheter (BGC) use during endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) influences procedural and clinical outcomes in the ESCAPE-NA1 trial. Methods: ESCAPE-NA1 was an international multicenter trial that randomized large vessel occlusion stroke patients who underwent endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) to receive Nerinetide vs. placebo. Information on EVT techniques and devices was extracted from angiographic images and procedure report forms. Effect estimates of BGC use on angiographic and clinical outcomes were obtained with logistic regression with adjustment for age, ASPECTS, baseline NIHSS, occlusion site, alteplase and study drug treatment. Results: Detailed information on EVT devices and technique was available for 891/1105 (80.6%) patients. A BGC was used in 599/891 patients (67.2%). BGC use was most common with a retrievable stent use (with or without distal access catheter) as the first-line approach (in 252/266 cases [94.7%] vs. combined approach (both aspiration and SR): 288/414 [69.6%], vs. contact aspiration: 37/159 cases [23.3%]). Overall, eTICI 2b/3 rates with vs. without BGC did not differ significantly (525/598 [87.8%] vs. 260/292 [89.0%]), but eTICI 2c/3 rates were significantly higher when a BGC was used (304/598 [50.8%] vs. 126/292 [43.2%], adjusted OR 1.39 [95%CI 1.05 - 1.9]). Good outcomes (mRS 0-2) were not associated with BGC use (adjusted OR 1.07 [95%CI 0.78 - 1.48]). Conclusion: BGC use was associated with a greater proportion of near-complete reperfusion, while there was no significant association with 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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".