Blood Pressure Variability in Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke: <i>Post-Hoc</i> Analysis of the BP-TARGET trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Factors associated with blood pressure variability (BPV) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients undergoing thrombectomy have not been well established. Therefore, we performed a post-hoc analysis of the BP-TARGET trial, evaluating the relationship between BPV, post-procedural intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), and functional independence at 90 days. Methods: For 24 h after thrombectomy, blood pressure values were recorded and BPV was quantified by calculating the following indices: 24-h average real variability (AVR24), time rate index (TRI), successive variability (SV), standard deviation (SD), and range for systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial blood pressures. We assessed the effect of initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, age, modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) score, and initial systolic blood pressure post-procedure on BPV, as well as the effect of BPV on IPH at 24 h and functional independence defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 0-2 at 90 days. Results: A total of 193 AIS patients (mean age 72.7 ± 13.6 years), with an average post-procedure systolic blood pressure of 152.8 ± 25.6 mm Hg, were analyzed. An mTICI score of 2b (incomplete/subtotal recanalization), compared with mTICI score of 3 (full recanalization), predicted increased BPV (ARV: P = 0.014, TRI: P = 0.028, and SV: P = 0.030). There was no association between BPV and functional independence at 90 days (ARV: P = 0.185, TRI: P = 0.657, and SV: P = 0.550), or BPV and post-procedural IPH. Conclusion: In this post-hoc analysis of the BP-TARGET trial, better recanalization was associated with decreased BPV in AIS patients post-thrombectomy. Nevertheless, we found no association between BPV indices and functional independence at 90 days or post-procedural IPH.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".