MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385521310 · doi:10.1136/jnis-2023-snis.386

LB-012 Incidence of intracranial hemorrhage after thrombectomy for large core infarcts: a sub analysis of the select2 trial

2023· article· en· W4385521310 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Chen, Krishna C. Joshi, Bradley Kolb, Michael D. Hill, Michael Abraham, Ameer E Hassan, Silvia Ortega‐Gutiérrez, Mujahid Hussain, Deep Pujara, Clark Sitton, Vítor Mendes Pereira, Marc Ribó, Gregory W. Albers, Bruce Campbell, Amrou Sarraj

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticIncidence (geometry)Stroke (engine)OcclusionEndovascular treatmentRandomized controlled trialInternal carotid arteryComplicationSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicineAneurysm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) remains a major complication of endovascular thrombectomy for stroke. Both symptomatic ICH and asymptomatic ICH have been shown to portend a worse prognosis after thrombectomy in patients with ASPECTS >6. Incidence of ICH and its effect on the outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy for patients with large cores remains unknown. This study evaluated the incidence and effect of ICH in a subset analysis of the SELECT2 trial. Methods SELECT2 was a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, adaptive, international trial to assess endovascular thrombectomy vs medical management in patients with a large core stroke (CT ASPECTS 3-5 and/or ischemic core volume ≥ 50ml) due to occlusion of the internal carotid artery or the first segment of the middle cerebral artery, who presented within 24 hours of last known well. We performed a subgroup analysis of SELECT2 data to understand baseline characteristics and outcomes associated with subjects experiencing any ICH, defined by the Heidelberg bleeding criteria (HBC). Results A total of 352 patients were included– 172 received medical management (MM) and 180 received endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) plus medical management (EVT + MM). Any intracranial hemorrhage was observed in 34.9% (60/172) in the MM group versus 74.9% (134/180) of patients in the EVT + MM group (p<0.001). Hemorrhagic transformation (HBC 1a or 1b) accounted for 93% of the intracranial hemorrhages in both the MM group (56/60) and the EVT + MM group (125/134). Among those receiving EVT + MM, successful reperfusion was achieved in 75.6% (34/45) of patients without intracranial hemorrhage versus 81.3% (109/134) of patients with intracranial hemorrhage (p=0.40). Early neurological worsening occurred in 8.9% (4/45) of EVT + MM patients without intracranial hemorrhage versus 29.9% (40/134) with any intracranial hemorrhage (adj. RR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.01-7.08, p=0.049). This; however, did not result in statistically significant differences in 90-day mRS scores (adj. GenOR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.68-1.13, p=0.32), functional independence (adj RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.61-1.96, p=0.57), independent ambulation (adj. RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.61-1.20,p=0.36), or 90-day all-cause mortality (adj. RR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.84-1.41, p=0.52) between patients with any intracranial hemorrhage versus those without, after adjusting for treatment modality, age, NIHSS, time from last known well to randomization, ASPECTS and ischemic core volume estimates. Conclusion In a subset analysis of SELECT2 trial, patients receiving EVT had a higher rate of any intracranial hemorrhage when compared with those receiving medical management. Although EVT patients with ICH had a higher incidence of early neurological worsening, there was no difference in 90-day mRS, mortality and discharge dispositions between those with or without ICH. Disclosures M. Chen: None. K. Joshi: None. B. Kolb: None. M. Hill: None. M. Abraham: None. A. Hassan: None. S. Ortega-Gutiérrez: None. M. Hussain: None. D. Pujara: None. C. Sitton: None. V. Pereira: None. M. Ribo: None. G. Albers: None. B. Campbell: None. A. Sarraj: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→