Endovascular Treatment and Peri-interventional Management of Ruptured Cerebrovascular Lesions During Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hemorrhagic stroke, particularly occurring from ruptured cerebrovascular malformations, is responsible for 5-12% of all maternal deaths during pregnancy and the puerperium. Whether endovascular treatment is feasible and safe for both the mother and the fetus, is still a matter of debate. The main objective of this case series and systematic review was to share our multi-institutional experience and to assess the feasibility and safety of endovascular treatment during pregnancy, as well as the corresponding maternal and fetal outcomes based on currently available evidence. METHODS: We report a case series of 12 pregnant women presenting with hemorrhagic stroke from ruptured cerebrovascular arteriovenous malformations or aneurysms who underwent endovascular treatment prior to delivery. A systematic literature review of pregnant patients with endovascular treated cerebrovascular malformations, published between 1995 and 2022, was performed. Clinical patient information, detailed treatment strategies, maternal and fetal outcomes as well as information on the delivery were collected and assessed. RESULTS: In most patients the course was uneventful and an excellent outcome without significant neurological deficits (mRS ≤ 1) was achieved. Furthermore, the maternal outcome was not worse compared to the general population who underwent endovascular treatment of ruptured vascular brain lesions. Also, in most cases a healthy fetus was born. CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment of ruptured cerebrovascular malformations during pregnancy is safe and feasible regarding both aspects, the maternal and fetal outcomes. Still, a stronger knowledge base is needed to correctly approach future cases of intracranial hemorrhage in the pregnant population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".