Emergent Carotid Stenting for Acute Anterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke With Tandem Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The management of anterior circulation tandem lesion stroke remains controversial, given its under-representation in randomized thrombectomy trials and uncertainty regarding optimal extracranial carotid intervention. We aimed to determine whether emergent carotid stenting (eCAS) during endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for anterior circulation tandem lesions improves 90-day functional outcomes compared with a no-stenting strategy. METHODS: We conducted an international multicenter longitudinal retrospective cohort study (CERES-TANDEM, NCT06965036) of consecutive adults treated at 49 comprehensive stroke centers in Europe, North America, and Singapore for anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke due to tandem lesions from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2024. Exclusion criteria were primary hemorrhagic stroke, absence of intracranial occlusion, presentation >24 hours from symptom onset, and age younger than 18 years. We compared 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores between participants receiving eCAS and those receiving no stenting during EVT. The primary estimand was mRS shift, analyzed by stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)-weighted ordinal regression. Additional estimands were direct-effect estimand adjusting for successful recanalization (defined as Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction grade 2b or higher) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) (estimand 2) and stratum estimand restricting to never-crossers (estimand 3). RESULTS: = 0.008). DISCUSSION: In this large real-world cohort, eCAS during EVT for anterior circulation tandem lesions was associated with superior 90-day functional recovery without increased hemorrhagic risk. These findings support consideration of eCAS in clinical practice and warrant confirmation in randomized trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Registered in clinicaltrials.gov, NCT06965036. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that in patients with stroke due to anterior circulation tandem lesions, eCAS during EVT improves 90-day functional outcomes compared with EVT alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".