ArticleScientific reports2022
Prevalence and clinical significance of anatomic variant in cephalic arch on preoperative mapping venography.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-Specific Vascular Anatomy for Bedside Safety: A Targeted Narrative Review and the VASC-N Framework.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the current study was to determine the prevalence of anatomic variant in cephalic arch on preoperative mapping venography and evaluate patency rates and predictors of patency in patients with brachiocephalic fistulas. The prevalence of anatomic variant in cephalic arch was retrospectively evaluated in 1004 consecutive patients who underwent bilateral preoperative mapping venography from July 2006 to December 2018 in a single center. The overall prevalence of anatomic variant in cephalic arch was 17.2% (173/1004). For patency analysis, 128 patients with brachiocephalic fistulas were divided into two groups: a standard anatomy (SA) group (n = 97) and a variant anatomy (VA) group (n = 31). There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups. The primary patency rate did not differ significantly between the two groups. The secondary patency rate was significantly (p = 0.009) lower in the VA group than in the SA group. Older age (HR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.05; p = 0.007) was a negative predictor of primary patency, and antiplatelet agent (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.84; p = 0.007) and large-diameter cephalic vein (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31-0.86; p = 0.012) were positive predictors of primary patency. Older age (HR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07; p = 0.011) and anatomic variant in cephalic arch (HR 2.9; 95% CI 1.19-7.06; p = 0.019) were negative predictors of secondary patency. The current study provides insight into the clinical significance of anatomic variant in cephalic arch. Anatomic variant in cephalic arch should be considered as a potential risk factor for decreased patency of brachiocephalic fistula during preoperative planning.
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.