Clinical and safety outcomes of acute stenting plus thrombectomy for carotid tandem lesions with large ischemic core
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the clinical and safety outcomes of emergent carotid artery stenting (eCAS) plus endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) among patients with anterior tandem lesion (TL) and large ischemic core (LIC). METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive stroke patients enrolled in the Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke Registry in France between January 2015 and June 2023. We compared the outcomes of carotid stenting vs no stenting in tandem lesion with pre-treatment LIC (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) 3-5) and stenting in tandem lesion vs thrombectomy alone for isolated intracranial occlusions with pre-treatment LIC. Primary outcome was a score of 0 to 3 on the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: Among 218 tandem patients with LIC, 55 were treated with eCAS plus EVT. The eCAS group had higher odds of 90-day mRS 0-3 (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 5.21; p=0.027). There were no differences in the risk of any intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.86; p=0.346), parenchymal hematoma (aOR 1.216, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.02; p=0.675), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (aOR 1.45, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.48; p=0.409), or 90-day mortality (aOR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.68; p=0.472). eCAS was associated with a higher rate of carotid patency at day 1 (aOR 3.54, 95% CI 1.14 to 11.01; p=0.028). Safety outcomes were similar between EVT+eCAS group in TL-LIC and EVT alone group in isolated intracranial occlusions with LIC. CONCLUSION: eCAS appears to be a safe and effective strategy in patients with TL and LIC volume.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".