Early Results of Fenestrated Endovascular Repair of Juxtarenal Aortic Aneurysms in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms has been proposed as an alternative to open surgery for juxtarenal and pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. At present, the evidence base for this procedure is predominantly limited to single-center or single-operator series. The aim of this study was to present nationwide early results of fenestrated endovascular repair in the United Kingdom. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients who underwent fenestrated endovascular repair between January 2007 and December 2010 at experienced institutions in the United Kingdom(>10 procedures) were retrospectively studied by use of the GLOBALSTAR database. Site-reported data relating to patient demographics, aneurysm morphology, procedural details, and outcome were recorded. Data from 318 patients were obtained from 14 centers. Primary procedural success was achieved in 99% (316/318); perioperative mortality was 4.1%, and intraoperative target vessel loss was observed in 5 of 889 target vessels (0.6%). The early reintervention (<30 days) rate was 7% (22/318). There were 11 deaths during follow-up; none were aneurysm-related. Survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis was 94% (SE 0.01), 91% (0.02), and 89% (0.02) at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Freedom from target vessel loss was 93% (0.02), 91% (0.02), and 85% (0.06), and freedom from late secondary intervention (>30 days) was 90% (0.02), 86% (0.03), and 70% (0.08) at 1, 2, and 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: In this national sample, fenestrated endovascular repair has been performed with a high degree of technical and clinical success. Late survival and target vessel patency are satisfactory. These results support continued use and evaluation of this technique for juxtarenal aneurysms, but illustrate the need for a more robust evidence base.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".