ReviewCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Safety and Efficacy of Vascular Embolization with N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate-Lipiodol Mixture: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of 8996 Patients.
Review in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis assessing the efficacy and safety of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) glue diluted with Lipiodol for vascular embolization.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) identified studies published between January 2004 and May 2024. Data were independently extracted and evaluated by two reviewers. Studies reporting efficacy and/or safety outcomes in ≥10 patients treated with NBCA-Lipiodol® Ultra Fluid alone were included. The primary outcome was the overall rate of technically successful embolization, defined as immediate haemostasis or complete occlusion; secondary outcomes included technical success by indication, recurrent bleeding, clinical success by indication, defined according to each indication, and procedure-related complications, including reported major complications.
resultsA total of 150 studies involving 8996 patients were included: 132 peripheral (8301 patients) and 18 central (695 patients) embolization studies. Outcomes varied across indications. Technical success ranged from 94.1% (tumour) to 100% for peripheral indications and from 76.1% (dAVF) to 97.1% (CNS tumour) for central indications. Clinical success ranged from 73.9% (variceal bleeding) to 100% (varicoceles) for peripheral indications and from 57.9% (AVM) to 89.5% (dAVF) for central indications. Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed, with indication and study design identified as moderators. The overall technical success rate under a random-effects model was 96.5% [95% CI 95.6-97.4], while the estimated clinical success rates were 86.2% [82.3-89.7] for peripheral and 78.7% [57.6-93.9] for central indications. The overall and major complication rates were 15.6% [12.4-19.1] and 3.2% [2.5-3.9], respectively.
conclusionNBCA is a safe and effective embolic agent across a broad range of vascular indications. It provides high technical and clinical success rates with low reported major complication rates in both peripheral and central territories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42697974What 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.