Three cases of mechanical thrombectomy in patients over 100 years old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While several cases involving mechanical thrombectomy in patients >90 years old have been reported, only 1 case involving a patient >100 years old has been described. We herein report 3 cases of mechanical thrombectomy performed in patients >100 years old, along with a review of the literature.Case 1: A 102-year-old woman with a National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 20 and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI)-Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS) of 8 points showed M1 occlusion. She was treated with tissue plasminogen activator followed by mechanical thrombectomy. Recanalization of thrombosis in cerebral infarction (TICI)-3 was obtained at 1 pass. After 90 days, her modified Rankin Scale (mRS) was 2, and she returned to living independently.Case 2: A 104-year-old woman with a NIHSS score of 13 and DWI-ASPECTS of 9 points showed M1 occlusion, so mechanical thrombectomy was performed. Recanalization of TICI-3 was obtained. She was admitted with an mRS of 5.Case 3: A 101-year-old woman with an NIHSS score of 8 and DWI-ASPECTS of 10 points showed right internal carotid artery occlusion, so mechanical thrombectomy was performed. Direct puncture of the right common carotid artery was performed due to access difficulties. Recanalization of TICI-3 was obtained. She was admitted with an mRS of 5. CONCLUSION: In all cases, occlusion access using techniques such as direct carotid puncture was possible, but two of the three patients had an mRS of 5, resulting in a poor prognosis. The indication for treatment in patients >100 years old should be carefully considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".