Carotid Endarterectomy in Octogenerians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in octogenerians. Methods: The records of 59 CEA performed in 57 patients who were 80 yr or older between April 1993 and September 1998 were reviewed. There were 33 males and 24 females with a mean age of 82. Forty-nine procedures (83%) were performed for symptomatic carotid stenosis. The perioperative mortality and morbidity including neurological events were recorded. Long term follow-up data was also obtained. Results: There were three perioperative deaths (5.1%) and three perioperative neurological events, including one stroke (1.7%) and two transient ischemic attacks (3.4%). The combined mortality and stroke rate was 6.8%. With a mean follow-up of 25 ± 21 months, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 4-yr survival rate, freedom from stroke, and stroke free survival were 78. 94 and 75% respectively. For comparison, during the same time period, the same group of surgeons performed 597 CEA in patients less than 80 yr of age. The perioperative mortality and stroke rate was 0.3 and 2.5% respectively, with a combined mortality and stroke rate of 2.7%. Perioperative mortality was significantly higher in patients over 80 yr of age ( P < 0.01). Conclusions: CEA in octogenerians is associated with a higher mortality rate than in younger patients. However, good long term survival and freedom from stroke make CEA beneficial in octogenerians. With careful patient selection and perioperative management. CEA in octogenerians is worthwhile and should be advised in selected patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".