ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
Intermediate catheter use is associated with intraprocedural rupture during coil embolization of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a retrospective propensity score-matched study.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intra-procedural re-rupture during endovascular coiling of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review.Neuroradiology · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Effects of Using the Combined Technique in the First Attempt for Acute Large-vessel Occlusion, with Specific Reference to Age Differences.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2026Article
- Use of Target Tetra with an understanding of its novel structure.Surgical neurology international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: An intermediate catheter (IMC) may pose a risk of intraprocedural rupture (IPR) during coil embolization of ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIAs), because the pressure on the microcatheter and coil might be more direct. To verify this hypothesis, this study explored whether use of an IMC might correlate with an increased rate of IPR during coil embolization for RIAs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 195 consecutive aneurysms in 192 patients who underwent initial coil embolization for saccular RIAs at our institution between January 2007 and December 2023. Patients were divided into two groups with aneurysms treated either with an IMC (IMC group) or without an IMC (non-IMC group). To investigate whether IMC use increased the rate of IPR, a propensity score-matched analysis was employed to control for age, sex, maximal aneurysm size, neck size, bleb formation, aneurysm location, proximal vessel tortuosity, balloon-assisted coiling, type of microcatheter, and type of framing coil. Results: Ultimately, 43 (22%) coil embolization used IMC. In univariate analysis, the incidence of IPR was significantly higher in the IMC group compared with the non-IMC group (14.0 vs. 3.3%, Discussion: When using IMC for coil embolization of RIAs, the surgeons should be more careful and delicate in manipulating the microcatheter and inserting the coils to avoid IPR.
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.