ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2025
Single-center 10-year retrospective analysis of Amplatzer Vascular Plug 4 embolization for pulmonary arteriovenous malformations with feeding arteries of <6 mm
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolving strategies in pulmonary arteriovenous malformation embolization.CVIR endovascular · 2026Review
- Pulmonary arteriovenous fistula: diagnosis, interventional therapy and clinical progress.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Safety and efficacy of transcatheter embolization for pulmonary arteriovenous fistula: a 21-year retrospective study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of Amplatzer Vascular Plug 4 (AVP4) embolization in pulmonary arteriovenous malformations (PAVMs) with small- to medium-sized feeding arteries (<6 mm) and to identify factors affecting persistence and the main persistence patterns after embolization.
methodsBetween June 2013 and February 2023, we retrospectively reviewed 100 patients with 217 treated PAVMs. We included PAVMs with feeding arteries <6 mm, treated with AVP4 embolization, and followed adequately with computed tomography (CT). Technical success was defined as flow cessation observed on angiography. Persistence was defined as less than a 70% reduction of the venous sac on CT. We evaluated adverse events for each embolization session. Patterns of persistence were assessed using follow-up angiography. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate factors affecting persistence based on the 70% CT criteria.
resultsFifty-one patients (48 women, 3 men; mean age: 50.8 years; age range: 16-71 years) with 103 PAVMs met the inclusion criteria. The technical success rate was 100%. The persistence rate was 9.7% (10/103), and the overall adverse event rate was 2.9% (3/103) during a mean follow-up of 556 days (range: 181-3,542 days). In two cases, the persistence pattern confirmed by follow-up angiography involved reperfusion via adjacent pulmonary artery collaterals. The location of embolization relative to the last normal branch of the pulmonary artery was the only factor substantially affecting persistence.
conclusionEmbolization with AVP4 appears to be safe and effective for small- to medium-sized PAVMs. The location of the embolization relative to the last normal branch of the pulmonary artery was found to be the main determinant of persistence. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Given the increasing demand for the treatment of small PAVMs, AVP4 embolization could be considered a viable and effective option for managing PAVMs with feeding arteries <6 mm.
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.