Simultaneous approach in tandem occlusion: a safe, effective, and faster way to achieve recanalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and intracranial vessel occlusion. Tandem occlusions (TO) comprise 20% of all anterior circulation AIS and are related to a poorer prognosis. The optimal EVT treatment strategy remains controversial. Our main objective was to determine if simultaneous endovascular treatment of intracranial and extracranial occlusions in patients with TO results in faster recanalization times, with similar efficacy and safety, compared with the sequential approach. METHODS: Single center, retrospective analysis of patients with TO undergoing EVT using the simultaneous or sequential technical approach. The primary outcome was puncture-to-final recanalization time. Secondary outcomes included modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at 3 months, 30 day mortality, and hemorrhagic transformation. RESULTS: We included 111 patients with TO (35 treated with the simultaneous approach and 76 treated with the sequential approach). Successful recanalization was achieved in 91.9% of cases, and the first pass effect was 50.5%, with no differences between groups. The simultaneous technique resulted in shorter puncture-to-final recanalization time (33.0 min (IQR 25.0-55.0) vs 52.0 (30.0-73.0), P=0.018), adjusting for number of passes, first pass effect, thrombolysis, age, and previous stroke (adjusted β -0.21 (95% CI -29.47 to -2.79); P=0.018). No significant differences were found in 30 day functional outcome, mortality, or rate of hemorrhagic transformation when comparing simultaneous and sequential techniques. CONCLUSION: The simultaneous approach was effective, safe, and faster than the classic sequential approach in patients with TO. This result may obviate the debate over which occlusion should be addressed first during EVT.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".