ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Improving culprit artery identification with intraprocedural cone-beam CT aortography and its clinical impact in bronchial artery embolization.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The characteristics of upper lobe-origin hemoptysis: analysis based on 31 patients.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Anatomy Insights and Key Pearls for Bronchial Artery Embolization.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of intraprocedural cone-beam CT (CBCT) aortography on culprit artery identification and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing bronchial artery embolization (BAE). MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred eighty-two patients with 317 BAE procedures were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who underwent preprocedural chest CT angiography (CTA) without intraprocedural CBCT aortography were categorized as Group A (n = 177). Patients who underwent both preprocedural chest CTA and intraprocedural CBCT aortography were categorized as Group B (n = 105). Whether CBCT can provide improved culprit artery identification and whether this improvement has a clinical impact were evaluated by comparing the two Groups.
resultsIn Group B, CBCT aortography detected more culprit non-bronchial systemic arteries originating from the subclavian arteries compared to chest CTA (16 vs 3, p = 0.026), and the average number of embolized vessels was significantly higher than in Group A (2.47 ± 1.61 vs 2.03 ± 1.17, p = 0.016), while the procedure time was shorter (37.4 ± 22.0 vs 43.6 ± 22.7 min, p = 0.024). The recurrent hemoptysis rate was lower in Group B (17.5% vs 8.7%, p = 0.041), and the proportion of patients requiring subsequent procedures was significantly lower (12.4% vs 4.8%, p = 0.035). The changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate before and 3 days after the procedure (0.1 ± 12.8 vs 0.3 ± 11.0 mL/min/1.73 m
conclusionBAE with intraprocedural CBCT aortography enabled the embolization of more culprit arteries, leading to lower recurrent hemoptysis rates without increasing the risk of renal deterioration and radiation hazards when compared to procedures without it. KEY POINTS: Question Does intraprocedural CBCT aortography improve culprit artery detection and clinical outcomes in BAE for hemoptysis? Findings CBCT aortography significantly improved the detection of additional culprit arteries, especially from non-bronchial systemic arteries, increasing the number of vessels treated during BAE. Clinical relevance Using CBCT aortography during BAE results in better long-term outcomes by reducing recurrent hemoptysis and the need for additional procedures, without increasing the risk of renal impairment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39472334What 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.