ArticleNeurointervention2026
Closed-Circuit Dual-Port Injector System for Fully Automated Contrast Delivery in Diagnostic Cerebral Angiography.
Article in Neurointervention, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDuring diagnostic cerebral angiography, catheter navigation requires manual contrast "puff" injections, while subsequent 2D/3D runs often use automated power injectors. Using power injectors for navigation puffs has not been described. We present a closed-circuit dual-port injector system (Nemoto Press Duo Elite) that integrates both navigation puff delivery and diagnostic run injection into a single automated platform, eliminating all manual tableside contrast handling. A foot pedal interface enables operator-controlled puff timing, potentially reducing contrast waste and air embolism risk while improving single-operator ergonomics with future remote robotic implications. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective comparative cohort study compared 19 consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic cerebral angiography with foot pedal-controlled puff injections (June-July 2023) to 19 historical controls using manual hand injections (May 2021). Both groups used 90% contrast concentration. Fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, contrast utilization, and safety outcomes were compared.
resultsGroups were demographically matched (mean age 52.1±14.2 vs. 50.2±12.9 years; 73.7% female). All 38 procedures achieved diagnostic adequacy with no complications. The foot pedal group demonstrated significantly shorter procedure time per vessel (11.5±4.4 vs. 18.9±10.5 min/vessel, P=0.010) with no significant differences in fluoroscopy time (P=0.171), radiation dose (P=0.690), or contrast delivered (88.7±30.9 vs. 88.2±42.5 mL, P=0.966). A trend toward improved contrast efficiency was observed (23.4±9.4 vs. 27.4±10.4 mL/vessel, P=0.226). Despite undergoing significantly more 3D rotational runs (1.3±1.0 vs. 0.6±0.7, P=0.030), the foot pedal group maintained comparable safety metrics, strengthening the non-inferiority findings.
conclusionA closed-circuit dual-port injector system integrating automated navigation puff delivery with diagnostic run injection demonstrates non-inferiority to manual injection for diagnostic cerebral angiography, with shorter procedure time per vessel (39% reduction, P=0.010), though interpretation is limited by differences in indication distribution. By eliminating manual tableside contrast handling, this approach enables precise digital contrast accounting and reduces air embolism risk, establishing a foundation for remote and robotic angiography applications.
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.