Abstract 442: Stenosis Following Stent‐Retrieval in Left Middle Cerebral Artery (MCA) but not Right MCA Using Aspiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The purpose of this study is to add to the conflicting literature surrounding the relationship between stent‐retrievers and post‐endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) stenosis. EVT using a stent‐retriever to mechanically remove embolisms is the standard to treat large vessel occlusions. Recurrent stenosis is not uncommon, and it is theorized that the mechanical stress exhibited by the stent‐retriever can cause irritation of the vessel walls resulting in thrombosis and re‐occlusion causing post‐EVT stenosis. Large‐bore aspiration catheters are an alternative method and have been found to possibly reduce the risk of post‐EVT stenosis. Materials/Methods A 72‐year‐old male with a history of atrial fibrillation, off anticoagulation due to complex femoral‐peroneal bypass surgery, presented with left hemiparesis and dysarthria. A computed tomography angiography (CTA) demonstrated occlusion of the right middle cerebral artery (MCA) in the M1 segment with severe stenosis of the left MCA (Figure 1). The patient underwent successful EVT via right common femoral artery access, with complete recanalization after one pass of aspiration. Four months previously, the patient presented with right side hemiparesis and dysarthria and was found to have a left MCA M1 occlusion. He underwent EVT using a stent‐retriever technique with 1 pass and a 5 mm x 37 mm stent was deployed, resulting in complete recanalization. On the post‐EVT control angiogram there was no significant stenosis in the left MCA. Results The same patient underwent EVT within 4 months in both the left and right MCA and developed left progressive MCA stenosis post stent‐retriever thrombectomy. While the type of stroke mechanisms could be another factor, this patient's case adds to the conflicting literature surrounding stent‐retrievers and a higher frequency of re‐occlusion as compared to aspiration. Conclusion Post‐EVT stenosis can cause further complications, such as stroke, and thus this case warrants research to elucidate the relationship of stent‐retrievers and post‐EVT stenosis. image image
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".