P.115 Saskatchewan experience with mechanical thrombectomy under general anaesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: While recent clinical trials have demonstrated immense efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in the setting of acute stroke, there remains debate over the safety in performing this procedure under general anesthesia (GA). In the Saskatchewan Acute Stroke Pathway, all patients presenting with LVO have endovascular thrombectomy performed under GA. Methods: Data was retrospectively reviewed on 108 consecutive LVO in 2016-2017. All MT were done under GA. Anatomical location of LVO, pre-MT ASPECTS score, post-MT TICI scores and 90-day NIHSS and mRS were recorded. Results: Of 108 LVO, 103 went on to have MT. 44 were right anterior circulation, 50 were left anterior circulation and 9 were posterior circulation. Of 94 anterior circulation strokes, 47 (50.0%), 43 (45.7%) and 4 (4.3%) had good, moderate and poor collateral circulation respectively, and the average pre-MT ASPECTS was 8.6. The average pre-MT NIHSS was 14.7. 81/90 (90.0%) achieved thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) perfusion scale grade of 2b/3 after recanalization. Average documented 90-day NIHSS was 2.4 and mRS was 2.5. Overall mortality was 21/103 (20.4%). Conclusions: In the Saskatchewan acute stroke pathway, general anesthesia is a safe modality for MT. This adds to the body of evidence supporting GA as a viable option for sedation in MT.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".