Impact of immediate postrecanalization cooling on outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients with a large ischemic core: prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with large acute ischemic strokes (AIS) often have a poor prognosis despite successful recanalization due to multiple factors including reperfusion injury. The authors aim to describe our preliminary experience of endovascular cooling in patients with a large AIS after recanalization. METHODS: From January 2021 to July 2022, AIS patients presenting with large infarcts (defined as ASPECTS ≤5 on noncontrast CT or ischemic core ≥50 ml on CT perfusion) who achieved successful recanalization after endovascular treatment were analyzed in a prospective registry. Patients were divided into targeted temperature management (TTM) and non-TTM group. Patients in the TTM group received systemic cooling with a targeted core temperature of 33° for at least 48 h. The primary outcome is 90-day favorable outcome [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2]. The secondary outcomes are 90-day good outcome (mRS 0-3), mortality, intracranial hemorrhage and malignant cerebral edema within 7 days or at discharge. RESULTS: Forty-four AIS patients were recruited (15 cases in the TTM group and 29 cases in the non-TTM group). The median Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) was 3 (2-5). The median time for hypothermia duration was 84 (71.5-147.6) h. The TTM group had a numerically higher proportion of 90-day favorable outcomes than the non-TTM group (46.7 vs. 27.6%, P=0.210), and no significant difference were found regarding secondary outcomes (all P>0.05). The TTM group had a numerically higher rates of pneumonia (66.7 vs. 58.6%, P=0.604) and deep vein thrombosis (33.3 vs. 13.8%, P=0.138). Shivering occurred in 4/15 (26.7%) of the TTM patients and in none of the non-TTM patients (P=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Postrecanalization cooling is feasible in patients with a large ischemic core. Future randomized clinical trials are warranted to validate its efficacy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".