MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392489412 · doi:10.1161/svin.03.suppl_2.232

Abstract 232: Endovascular Thrombectomy for Distal Vessel Occlusions in Early vs Extended Time Window

2023· article· en· W4392489412 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amol Mehta, Christopher M. Kellner, Tomoyoshi Shigematsu, Hazem Shoirah, M. Travis Caton, Thomas J. Oxley, Reade De Leacy, J Mocco, Johanna T Fifi, Shahram Majidi

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWindow (computing)RadiologyComputer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction There has been a growing body of literature in recent years suggesting the safety and efficacy of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) from distal vessel occlusion (DVO). Limited data is available regarding the risks and benefits of EVT in this patient population, especially when comparing the early window (6 hours from LKW) to the extended window (6‐24 hours from LKW). We aim to study this further. Methods We queried our stroke registry, a prospectively maintained database of AIS patients who presented from December 2014 to July 2023, and isolated patients with DVO who underwent EVT. DVO was defined as M2, M3, M4 occlusion, ACA occlusion, and/or PCA occlusion. We then further subdivided this into two groups, patients within the early window, and patients within the extended window. We compared characteristics between these groups using univariate analysis. We additionally performed a multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, age, sex, and use of intravenous (IV) thrombolysis to investigate whether or not extended window thrombectomy was associated with worse outcome. Our primary outcomes were modified Rankin Score (mRS) at discharge and at 90 days. Results Total of 290 patients had DVO and underwent EVT. Of these, 214 had all relevant data. 147 (68.7%) underwent EVT in the early window and 67 (31.3%) received EVT in the extended window. Mean age was 72.3 (±14.4). There were more women in the extended window 51.5% vs 44.8% (χ² = 20.57, p‐value < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in the average NIHSS between early (13.7) and extended (13.9) windows (t=‐0.44, p=0.66). Similarly, the median ASPECTS score was comparable between early (9.3) and extended (9.0) windows (t=1.41, p=0.16). As expected, there was a striking difference seen in patients receiving IV thrombolysis between early (54.5%) and extended (4.5%) windows (χ²=48.48, p<0.001). Post‐operative hematoma also was not different between the early (23.8%) and extended (14.9%) windows (χ² = 0.69, p‐value = 0.40). Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH) was only seen in 3.4% of patient in the early window and 2.9% of patients in extended window. No significant difference was found in the mRS at discharge (early: 3.1, extended: 3.4, t=‐0.90, p=0.37) or at 90 days (early: 3.1, extended: 3.5, t=‐1.08, p=0.29). Additionally, in our multivariable logistic regression model, receiving EVT in the extended window didn't significantly affect the discharge mRS (β=0.10, p=0.27) or the 90 day mRS (β=‐0.15, p=0.38). In this model, increasing age, lower ASPECTS score, and higher admission NIHSS predicted a higher discharge mRS, while IV thrombolysis was linked to a lower discharge mRS. Higher admission NIHSS was associated with a higher mRS at both discharge and 90 days. Conclusion In our study, outcome of EVT in the extended time window in patients with DVO was comparable to EVT outcome in early window, with no increased hemorrhagic complications. More studies are required to further understand the risks and benefits of EVT in patients with DVO stroke

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologySame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207