Procedural success with radial access for carotid artery stenting: systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Femoral access is the traditional approach for endovascular carotid artery stenting. Radial access is increasingly used as an alternative approach due to its known anatomical advantages in patients with unfavorable aortic arch morphology via the femoral approach and its excellent access site safety profile. Our objective was to analyze procedural success using radial access for carotid artery stenting as reported in the literature. Methods Three online databases were systematically searched following PRISMA guidelines for studies (n ≥20) using radial artery access for carotid artery stenting (1999–2018). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the procedural success (successful stent placement with no requirement for crossover to femoral access), mortality, and complication rates associated with radial access. Results Seven eligible studies reported procedural success outcomes with a pooled meta-analysis rate of 90.8% (657/723; 95% CI 86.7% to 94.2%; I 2 =53.1%). Asymptomatic radial artery occlusion occurred in 5.9% (95% CI 4.1% to 8.0%; I 2 =0%) and forearm hematoma in 1.4% (95% CI 0.4% to 2.9%; I 2 =0%). Risk of minor stroke/transient ischemic attack was 1.9% (95% CI 0.6% to 3.8%; I 2 =42.3%) and major stroke was 1.0% (95% CI 0.4% to 1.8%; I 2 =0%). There were three deaths across the seven studies (0.6%; 95% CI 0.2% to 1.3%; I 2 =0%). The meta-analysis was limited by statistically significant heterogeneity for the primary outcome of procedural success. Conclusion Radial access for carotid artery stenting has a high procedural success rate with low rates of mortality, access site complications, and cerebrovascular complications. The potential benefits of this approach in patients with unfavorable aortic arch access should be explored in a prospective randomized trial.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it