Management and outcome of patients with acute ischemic stroke and tandem carotid occlusion in the ESCAPE-NA1 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment and prognosis for stroke patients with tandem cervical carotid occlusion are unclear. We analyzed outcomes and treatment strategies of tandem occlusion patients in the ESCAPE-NA1 trial. METHODS: ESCAPE-NA1 was a multicenter international randomized trial of nerinetide versus placebo in 1105 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular treatment. We defined tandem occlusions as complete occlusion of the cervical internal carotid artery (ICA) on catheter angiography, in addition to a proximal ipsilateral intracranial large vessel occlusion. Baseline characteristics and outcome parameters were compared between patients with tandem occlusions versus those without, and between patients with tandem occlusion who underwent ICA stenting versus those who did not. The influence of tandem occlusions on functional outcome was analyzed using multivariable regression modeling. RESULTS: Among 115/1105 patients (10.4%) with tandem occlusions, 62 (53.9%) received stenting for the cervical ICA occlusion. Of these, 46 (74.2%) were stented after and 16 (25.8%) before the intracranial thrombectomy. A modified Rankin Score (mRS) of 0-2 at 90 days was achieved in 82/115 patients (71.3%) with tandem occlusions compared with 579/981 (59.5%) patients without tandem occlusions. Tandem occlusion did not impact functional outcome in the adjusted analysis (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.4). Among the subgroup of patients with tandem occlusion, cervical carotid stenting was not associated with different outcomes compared with no stenting (mRS 0-2: 75.8% vs 66.0%, adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 5.1). CONCLUSIONS: Tandem cervical carotid occlusion in patients with acute large vessel stroke did not lower the odds of good functional outcome in our study. Functional outcomes were similar irrespective of the management of the cervical ICA occlusion (stenting vs not 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".