Anaesthesia modality on endovascular therapy outcomes in patients with large infarcts: a post hoc analysis of the ANGEL-ASPECT trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Endovascular therapy (EVT) now penetrates the once obscure realm of large infarct core volume acute ischaemic stroke (LICV-AIS). This research aimed to investigate the potential correlation between different anaesthetic approaches and post-EVT outcomes in LICV-AIS patients. METHODS: Between October 2020 and May 2022, the China ANGEL-Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score (ASPECT) trial studied patients with LICV-AIS, randomly assigning them to the best medical management (BMM) or BMM with EVT. This post hoc subgroup analysis categorised subjects receiving BMM with EVT into general anaesthesia (GA) and non-GA groups based on anaesthesia type. We applied multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between anaesthesia during EVT and patient functional outcomes, as measured by the modified Rankin scale (mRS), in addition to the occurrence of complications. Further adjustment for selection bias was achieved through propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: In total, 230 patients with LICV-AIS were enrolled (GA 84 vs Non-GA 146). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the proportion of patients who achieved an mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days (27.4% for the GA group vs 31.5% for the non-GA group, p=0.51). However, the GA group had significantly longer median surgical times (142 min vs 122 min, p=0.03). Furthermore, GA was associated with an increased risk of postoperative pneumonia (adjusted OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.98). The results of PSM analysis agreed with the results of the multivariate regression analysis. No significant difference in intracranial haemorrhage incidence or mortality rate was observed between the groups. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis of subgroups of the ANGEL-ASPECT trial suggested that there may be no significant association between the choice of anaesthesia and neurological outcomes in LICV-AIS patients. However, compared with non-GA, GA prolongs the duration of EVT and is associated with a greater postoperative pneumonia risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04551664.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".