Distal revascularization and interval ligation (DRIL) procedure requires a long bypass for optimal inflow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distal revascularization and interval ligation (DRIL) is commonly used to treat ischemic steal syndrome caused by arteriovenous hemodialysis access and has been associated with good outcomes. However, the literature lacks technical details of a successful intervention. We tested the hypothesis that a brachial-level arteriovenous fistula (AVF) generates a zone of low arterial blood pressure in the brachial artery near the AVF origin. METHODS: We identified patients with ischemic steal syndrome caused by an AVF originating from the brachial artery level who were eligible for the DRIL procedure. All patients were studied with invasive pressure monitoring in the brachial artery at the time of digital subtraction angiography. We measured systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure at 5 cm intervals from a point in the arterial circulation 5 cm distal to the origin of the AVF and continuing proximally into the subclavian artery. RESULTS: Our series involved 10 patients with a mean age of 66.5 (range 53-81) years. Four patients were women and 8 had diabetes. All patients had grade 3 ischemic steal syndrome with ischemic rest pain and/or ischemic tissue loss. Mean systolic, diastolic and arterial pressures increased from the level of the AVF until central pressures were reached. Systolic blood pressure was significantly lower than central blood pressure until a level 20-25 cm proximal to the AVF. CONCLUSION: The benefits of the DRIL procedure in alleviating ischemic steal syndrome associated with hemodialysis access are best achieved with a DRIL bypass for which inflow originates at least 20-25 cm proximal to the origin of the AVF.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".