ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2024
Initial experience of using a large-bore (0.096″ inner diameter) access catheter in neurovascular interventions.
Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to report our initial experience of using a large-bore (0.096″ inner diameter) access catheter in neurovascular interventions.
methodsData were retrospectively collected from 5 sites in the US for neurovascular procedures performed using a large-bore access catheter. The effectiveness outcome was technical success, defined as the access catheter's successfully reaching its target vessel without conversion to direct carotid puncture or to a smaller-bore access catheter and successfully completing the intended neurointervention.
resultsOne hundred and thirteen procedures performed in 112 patients were included in this study. The mean age of the patients was 67.5 years (SD 16.2), and about half (49.1%) were female. The most common primary access sites were the femoral (64.6%) or radial (32.7%) artery. Challenging anatomic variations included severe vessel tortuosity (26/81, 32.1%), type II aortic arch (17/88, 19.3%), type III aortic arch (14/88, 15.9%), bovine arch (16/104, 15.4%), severe angle (<30°) between the subclavian and target vessel (11/74, 14.9%), and subclavian loop (7/79, 8.9%). The median access time to branch view was 18 min (IQR 11-28, N = 75). The technical success rate was 94.7%. Two dissections (1.8%) were related to the large-bore access catheter. Access site complications occurred in 2 patients (1.8%). Four additional symptomatic periprocedural complications not related to the large-bore access catheter occurred (7.1%).
conclusionFor neurovascular interventions, a 0.096″ inner diameter access catheter could be used with both femoral and radial arterial approaches, had a high technical success rate, and had a low rate of periprocedural complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.