Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30394843›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2019

Intravenous versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography: Occlusion rate and complication assessment of experimental aneurysms after flow diverter treatment in rabbits.

Andreas Simgen, Toshiki Tomori, Hagen Bomberg, Umut Yilmaz, Christian Roth, Wolfgang Reith, Ruben Mühl-Bennighaus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 82% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andreas Simgen1 Department of Neuroradiology, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg/Saar, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0913-6740
Toshiki Tomori1 Department of Neuroradiology, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Hagen Bomberg2 Department of Anesthesiology, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Umut Yilmaz1 Department of Neuroradiology, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Christian Roth3 Department of Neuroradiology, Clinic Bremen-Mitte, Bremen, Germany.
Wolfgang Reith1 Department of Neuroradiology, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Ruben Mühl-Bennighaus1 Department of Neuroradiology, Saarland University Hospital, Homburg/Saar, Germany.
Saarland University · DEKlinikum Bremen-Mitte · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeConventional intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography, which requires surgical exposure and ligation of the femoral or carotid artery, is a limited method of evaluating elastase-induced aneurysms in New Zealand white rabbits. The purpose of this study was to assess aneurysm morphology, occlusion rates and complications after flow diverter treatment comparing intravenous and intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography.

methodsWe previously published a preclinical study in which we evaluated the occlusion rates of elastase-induced aneurysms after treatment with a prototype flow diverter, by using intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography at three months ( n = 9) and six months ( n = 9). In addition to that intravenous digital subtraction angiography before treatment, after one month (early follow-up group) and after three months (late follow-up group) was performed. Occlusion rates were compared within the two groups by means of residual contrast filling.

resultsBaseline aneurysm characteristics revealed no significant differences between intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and intravenous digital subtraction angiography. Aneurysm occlusion rates in both follow-up groups using intravenous digital subtraction angiography were significantly higher compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (early follow-up group: intravenous digital subtraction angiography (one month) versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (three months); p = 0.03 and late follow-up group: intravenous digital subtraction angiography (three months) versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (six months); p = 0.04). Intravenous digital subtraction angiography is feasible to detect and reproduce device occlusions, in-stent stenosis and post-stent stenosis.

conclusionIntravenous digital subtraction angiography can not give a sufficient statement on the aneurysm occlusion process compared to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and is therefore not recommended for imaging follow-up after flow diverter treatment in rabbits. Regarding untreated aneurysms and complications like device occlusions, in-stent stenosis and post-stent stenosis intravenous digital subtraction angiography proofed to be a good alternative to intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography in our study.

Indexed as

Angiography, Digital SubtractionCerebral AngiographyIntracranial AneurysmStentsAnimalsArteriesDisease Models, AnimalFemaleRabbitsRandom AllocationVeinsaneurysmAnimal studiesdigital subtraction angiographyflow diverter

Identifiers

PMID30394843
PMCPMC6448376
OpenAlexW2898826471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.