Treatment practice of vasospasm during endovascular thrombectomy: an international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The clinical importance and management of vasospasm as a complication during endovascular stroke treatment (EVT) has not been well studied. We sought to investigate current expert opinions in neurointervention and therapeutic strategies of iatrogenic vasospasm during EVT. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous international online survey (4 April 2023 to 15 May 2023) addressing treatment standards of neurointerventionalists (NIs) practising EVT. Several illustrative cases of patients with vasospasm during EVT were shown. Two study groups were compared according to the NI's opinion regarding the potential influence of vasospasm on patient outcome after EVT using descriptive analysis. RESULTS: In total, 534 NI from 56 countries responded, of whom 51.5% had performed >200 EVT. Vasospasm was considered a complication potentially influencing the patient's outcome by 52.6% (group 1) whereas 47.4% did not (group 2). Physicians in group 1 more often added vasodilators to their catheter flushes during EVT routinely (43.7% vs 33.9%, p=0.033) and more often treated severe large-vessel vasospasm with vasodilators (75.3% vs 55.9%; p<0.001), as well as extracranial vasospasm (61.4% vs 36.5%, p<0.001) and intracranial medium-vessel vasospasm (27.1% vs 11.2%, p<0.001), compared with group 2. In case of a large-vessel vasospasm and residual and amenable medium-vessel occlusion during EVT, the study groups showed different treatment strategies. Group 2 continued the EVT immediately more often, without initiating therapy to treat the vasospasm first (9.6% vs 21.1%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: There is disagreement among NIs about the clinical relevance of vasospasm during EVT and its management. There was a higher likelihood of use of preventive and active vasodilator treatment in the group that perceived vasospasm as a relevant complication as well as differing interventional strategies for continuing an EVT in the presence of a large-vessel vasospasm.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".