Natural history of antiplatelet nonresponders undergoing carotid artery stenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Routine antiplatelet responsiveness testing for patients undergoing carotid artery stenting procedures is not performed at most endovascular centers and remains a topic of controversy within the neurointerventional community. The objective of this study was to determine if nonresponsiveness to acetylsalicylic acid or clopidogrel was associated with the development of symptomatic thromboembolic events in patients undergoing carotid stenting procedures. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted at the Foothills Medical Centre in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, from August 2019 to July 2021. Patients undergoing carotid artery stenting procedures and who were receiving dual antiplatelet therapy were enrolled in the study. Responsiveness to the antiplatelet medications was determined through whole blood impedance aggregometry. The primary outcome was development of a symptomatic thromboembolic event within 90 days after the procedure. The treating physicians were blinded to the aggregometry results for the duration of the study. RESULTS: One hundred two procedures were performed in 100 patients. Eight thromboembolic events (8%) occurred during the study. Age (p = 0.03) and nonresponsiveness to clopidogrel (p = 0.003) were associated with the development of thromboembolic events. The multivariable model showed that clopidogrel nonresponsiveness was independently associated with the development of a thromboembolic event (adjusted OR 6.14, 95% CI 1.25-30.11, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that patients who were identified as clopidogrel nonresponders, using whole blood impedance aggregometry, were at an increased risk of developing thromboembolic events. Larger studies are needed to assess the utility of routine platelet function testing prior to carotid artery stenting procedures.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".