MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106174397 · doi:10.1510/icvts.2008.181222

Is it safe to cover the left subclavian artery when placing an endovascular stent in the descending thoracic aorta?

2008· article· en· W2106174397 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubclavian arterySubclavian steal syndromeLeft subclavian arteryThoracic aortaStentSurgeryRandomized controlled trialCommon carotid arteryRadiologyAortaAortic archCardiologyCarotid arteries

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether the left subclavian artery may be safely covered with a descending thoracic aortic stent without a prior carotid-subclavian artery bypass or transposition procedure. Altogether 2612 abstracts were identified. Forty-five non-randomized control trials and 213 non-controlled papers were found using the reported search and all these were read in full to search for coverage of the left subclavian artery. From these papers, 20 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We identified 20 studies with more than 10 cases of left subclavian artery coverage without prior revascularisation. Aggregating the data from all these studies we found 498 covered left subclavian arteries. Complications included 13 strokes (2.6%), 8 cases of paraplegia or paraparesis (1.6%) and 6 endoleaks due to subclavian backflow (1.2%). Of note there were 51 cases of ischaemia or other symptoms attributable to poor blood flow (10%), which resulted in 20 post-procedural revascularisations (4%). In three studies the mean pressure drop in the left arm was between 36 and 48 mmHg after left subclavian occlusion. We conclude that coverage of the left subclavian artery has a low, but not insignificant, incidence of side-effects. This incidence must be balanced with the urgency of the procedure and may be acceptable in emergency or salvage situations. However, in non-emergency cases we recommend that the carotid arteries, the vertebral arteries and the Circle of Willis are fully assessed by tests such as duplex ultrasound, angiography, CT or MRI scanning. An absent right vertebral artery, diseased carotid arteries or an incomplete Circle of Willis is a contraindication to left subclavian artery coverage without prior transposition or bypass grafting of the left subclavian artery.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it