ArticleCVIR endovascular2025
Patient interpretation and implementation of air embolism prevention guidelines in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT): a survey-based study.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundTo assess how patients interpret and adhere to the International HHT Guidelines' recommendation to avoid intravenous (IV) air and to evaluate whether misinterpretation of this guidance as a strict requirement for in-line bubble filters may inadvertently hinder access to care. An anonymous 15-question survey was distributed to 7000 members of the HHT Research Network. The survey assessed awareness of the guideline, perceived necessity of bubble filter use, and the practical consequences of filter use. Responses were excluded if incomplete or submitted by individuals under 18 years old.
resultsOf the 596 responses received (9% response rate), 446 met inclusion criteria. Most respondents (79%) were aware of the guideline, and 66% interpreted it as requiring use of an IV bubble filter. Notably, 16% of respondents reported refusing care, and 25% reported delaying treatment-most often patient-initiated-due to perceived filter requirements. The interventions affected included essential and, in some cases, urgent care. In total, 20 respondents (4%) reported experiencing a transient ischemic attack (TIA) during IV therapy; two of these occurred despite filter use, and none resulted in permanent deficits. Patients who did not use filters were significantly less likely to report difficulty accessing care (p < 0.05).
conclusionsAlthough the guideline advises caution in avoiding IV air, many patients interpret it as mandating bubble filter use. This misunderstanding has been linked to delays in necessary care, increased patient frustration, and limited treatment access. These findings underscore the importance of clearer communication and education around guideline intent to mitigate unintended consequences.
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.