ArticleCVIR endovascular2026
Embolic agents in emergency care: a large retrospective cohort study.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectivesEmergency embolization is a cornerstone in the management of active bleeding and vascular lesions at risk of bleeding. This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of emergency embolization technical modalities in a large cohort of patients, with a focus on embolic agent selection depending on vessel and lesion characteristics. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent emergency embolization procedures in an interventional radiology department between 2022 and 2024. Data collection included precise type specifications and quantity of embolic agents, diameter and location of targeted vessel, vascular-type lesions, etiology, and technical success rate.
resultsA total of 304 patients (320 procedures, 465 artery embolizations) were analyzed. Most target arteries measured 1.0-1.9 mm in diameter (42.6%). For arteries < 1 mm (13.8%), liquid agents were preferred (46.7%), whereas coils were the most widely used in larger vessels. In active bleeding (32.7%), liquid agents (38.6%) and coils (37.3%) were the most commonly used. For spontaneously resolved bleeding lesions and pseudoaneurysms (33.1% and 14.2% of lesions, respectively), coils were widely used (34.9% and 50.8%, respectively). Coil use was associated with the highest procedural cost. Technical success was achieved in 99.1% of procedures.
conclusionIn emergency embolization, small-caliber vessels (1.0-1.9 mm) were the most frequently targeted. In cases of active bleeding, liquid embolic agents were favored, with high technical success. Notably, a substantial proportion of lesions were identified on CT without ongoing bleeding at the time of embolization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4, Case Series.
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.