Impact of anesthetic methods on outcomes for patients with large core stroke undergoing endovascular treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal anesthetic method for endovascular therapy in acute large core stroke remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of anesthetic methods on outcomes in patients with large core stroke. METHODS: This study was a subanalysis of a prospective, multicenter registry at 38 stroke centers in China. Patients with large core stroke, defined as an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 0-5 within 24 hours of witnessed symptom onset, were analyzed. The primary outcome was favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-3) at 90 days. RESULTS: 484 eligible patients were included in this analysis. General anesthesia (GA) was used in 84 patients (17.4%), while non-general anesthesia (non-GA) was used in 400 patients (82.6%). Non-GA was comparable to GA in the primary outcome (37.8% vs 32.1%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.60 to 1.91, P=0.83). Mortality at 90 days was 40% in the non-GA and 52.4% in the GA (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.22, P=0.21). The proportion of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 48 hours was 13.8% in the non-GA and 11.9% in the GA (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.77, P=0.56). The results remained consistent in the propensity score-matched cohort and inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort. CONCLUSION: In this cohort study of patients with large core stroke, no significant differences were found in functional and safety outcomes between non-GA and GA.
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 | 0.001 | 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".