Abstract WP144: Safety Of Eptifibatide Use In Ischemic Stroke Patients Undergoing Endovascular Thrombectomy: A Matched Cohort Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Small studies have suggested that eptifibatide (EPT) may be safe in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) following IV thrombolysis (tPA) or during endovascular therapy (EVT) for large vessel occlusion (LVO), however larger studies are called upon to evaluate the safety of EPT use in this setting. Methods: A stroke center registry (09/2015-12/2020) of consecutive adults who had undergone EVT for LVO was queried. Patients treated with EPT were matched with 3 control groups based on known factors associated with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) risk - age, early infarct size (Alberta Stroke Program Computed Tomography Scale [ASPECTS] score), and number of thrombectomy passes. ICH, parenchymal hematoma (PH-2), symptomatic ICH (sICH), and 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score were compared between matched groups. Results: A total of 236 patients were included, 59 of whom (25%) received EPT. IV tPA was non-significantly more utilized in EPT patients (41%, p=0.22). Rate of any ICH was similar between groups (p=0.23), while PH-2 was significantly more frequent with EPT (21% v. 7% v. 3% v. 0%; p= 0.0001). There were no significant differences in sICH (7% EPT v. 7% v. 5% v. 2%; p=0.57), 90-day mRS (p=0.84), or 90-day mortality (p=0.92) between EPT and control groups. Conclusion: In this single center analysis, EPT during EVT was associated with a higher rate of PH-2 grade hemorrhages but not with differences in sICH, 90-day mRS, or 90-day mortality. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".