ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2025
Factors that Enhance the Stability of Polidocanol and Monoethanolamine Oleic Acid Foams, and Identification of the Optimal Foam-Creating Device.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2025. 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.
- Comments on: "Factors that Enhance the Stability of Polidocanol and Monoethanolamine Oleic Acid Foams, and Identification of the Optimal Foam-Creating Device, by Higashino et al. (2025).Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effects of the air ratio and the addition of glucose solution (Gluc) on the stability of polidocanol-nonionic water-soluble contrast medium (Po/CM) and monoethanolamine oleate-nonionic water-soluble contrast medium (EO/CM) foams, and to identify the optimal device to prepare these foams. MATERIALS AND
methodsFour sclerosants were used: Po/CM (Po:CM = 1:1), Po/CM-Gluc (Po:CM:70% Gluc = 2:1:1), EO/CM (EO:CM = 1:1), and EO/CM-Gluc (EO:CM:70% Gluc = 2:1:1). The four sclerosants were mixed with air at ratios of 1:4, 1:7, and 1:10 using the Micro Magic connector (MM), hydrophobic emulsifying connector (Hbic), and hydrophilic emulsifying connector (Hlic). The times taken to prepare the foams using each device and the foam half-lives were measured.
resultsThe Po/CM (1:10) and Po/CM-Gluc (1:10) foams could not be prepared using any device. The EO/CM-Gluc (1:10), Po/CM (1:7), and Po/CM-Gluc (1:7) foams could not be prepared using the MM. The times taken to prepare the foams were not significantly different between the Hbic and Hlic for EO/CM-Gluc (1:4) and Po/CM (1:4). The times taken to prepare the other foams decreased significantly in the order MM > Hbic > Hlic. The half-lives of the foams were significantly prolonged by increasing the air ratio. For foams with the same air ratio, the presence of Gluc significantly increased the half-lives of EO/CM and Po/CM compared with the foams without Gluc.
conclusionThe half-lives of foams were prolonged by increasing their air ratio and by adding Gluc. Of the tested mixture devices, Hlic created foams with longer half-lives in the shortest time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40488762What 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.