Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40874961›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025

Radial-specific catheters for neuroendovascular procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ali Mortezaei, Nadir Al-Saidi, Ibrahim Mohammadzadeh, Jamal Behnood, Muhammed Amir Essibayi, Khaled M Taghlabi, Ahmed Abdelsalam, Mohammad Amin Habibi, Bardia Hajikarimloo, Luis Guada-Delgado and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Ali MortezaeiStudent Research Committee, Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran.
Nadir Al-Saidi *College of Medicine, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, USA.
Ibrahim Mohammadzadeh *Skull Base Research Center, Loghman-Hakim Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Jamal BehnoodDepartment of Neuroscience, Addiction Studies, and Neuroimaging, School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Muhammed Amir EssibayiMontefiore-Einstein Cerebrovascular Research Lab, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Khaled M TaghlabiClinical Innovations Laboratory, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, USA.
Ahmed AbdelsalamDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Radiology, Neurosciences, Pharmacology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Mohammad Amin HabibiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Bardia HajikarimlooDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.
Luis Guada-DelgadoDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Radiology, Neurosciences, Pharmacology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Ram SahaVirginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, USA.
Redi RahmaniDepartment of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Amir H FarajiClinical Innovations Laboratory, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX, USA.
Robert M StarkeDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Radiology, Neurosciences, Pharmacology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. rstarke@med.miami.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a radial-first approach in many neurointerventions, there are no systematic reviews and meta-analysis which comprehensively assess radial-specific catheter for neuroendovascular procedures. A systematic literature search was conducted through four electronic databases based on PRISMA 2020 guideline. Risk of bias was assessed employing Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A total of eleven studies with 990 patients using Armadillo, RIST, Zoom RDL, and BMX 81 catheters were included. The Armadillo showed significantly lower failure to catheterize the target vessel (0.0% vs. 3.04%, P = 0.036) than RIST. The Zoom RDL catheter had relatively higher failure rate of 10.3%. There was no significant difference between the Armadillo and RIST catheters in procedure-related complications. There were no reported cases of arterial spasm or hemorrhage for Armadillo catheter. RIST catheter had a 3.2% rate of neurological complications, a 3.1% rate of transfemoral conversion, and a 1.8% rate of hematoma. The BMX 81 catheter had a 2.5% rate of arterial vasospasm and a 5% rate of procedure-related complications. The Zoom RDL catheter had consistent rates of procedure-related, transfemoral conversion, and neurological complications, all at 6.9%, with insufficient data on other complications.

Indexed as

CathetersEndovascular ProceduresNeurosurgical ProceduresRadial ArteryHumansArmadilloBMX 81NeurointerventionRadial-specific cathetersRISTZoom RDL

Identifiers

PMID40874961
PMCPMC12394285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.