Endovascular therapy of isolated posterior cerebral artery occlusion stroke with and without general anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal anesthetic strategy for endovascular therapy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke is still under debate. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with isolated posterior cerebral artery (PCA) occlusion stroke undergoing EVT by anesthesia modality with conscious sedation (non-GA) versus general anesthesia (GA). METHODS: Patients from the Posterior CerebraL Artery Occlusion (PLATO) study were analyzed with regard to anesthetic strategy. GA was compared with non-GA using multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability of weighting treatment (IPTW) methods. The primary endpoint was the 90-day distribution of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Secondary outcomes included functional independence or return to Rankin at day 90, and successful reperfusion, defined as expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (eTICI) 2b to 3. Safety endpoints were symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and mortality. RESULTS: Among 376 patients with isolated PCA occlusion stroke treated with EVT, 183 (49%) had GA. The treatment groups were comparable, although the GA group contained more patients with severe stroke and lower posterior circulation Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (pc-ASPECTS). On IPTW analysis, there was no difference between groups with regard to ordinal mRS shift analysis (common OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.51, P=0.67) or functional independence (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.39, P=0.49). There were greater odds for successful reperfusion with GA (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.47, P=0.01). Safety outcomes were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with isolated PCA occlusion undergoing EVT, patients treated with GA had higher reperfusion rates compared with non-GA. Both GA and non-GA strategies were safe and functional outcomes were similar.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".