Transradial versus transfemoral access for embolization of intracranial aneurysms with the Woven EndoBridge device: a propensity score–matched study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Transradial access (TRA) is commonly utilized in neurointerventional procedures. This study compared the technical and clinical outcomes of the use of TRA versus those of transfemoral access (TFA) for intracranial aneurysm embolization with the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the Worldwide WEB Consortium, which comprises multicenter data related to adult patients with intracranial aneurysms who were managed with the WEB device. These aneurysms were categorized into two groups: those who were treated with TRA or TFA. Patient and aneurysm characteristics and technical and clinical outcomes were compared between groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match groups according to the following baseline characteristics: age, sex, subarachnoid hemorrhage, aneurysm location, bifurcation aneurysm, aneurysm with incorporated branch, neck width, aspect ratio, dome width, and elapsed time since the last follow-up imaging evaluation. RESULTS: This study included 682 intracranial aneurysms (median [interquartile range] age 61.3 [53.0-68.0] years), of which 561 were treated with TFA and 121 with TRA. PSM resulted in 65 matched pairs. After PSM, both groups had similar characteristics, angiographic and functional outcomes, and rates of retreatment, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications, and death. TFA was associated with longer procedure length (median 96.5 minutes vs 72.0 minutes, p = 0.006) and fluoroscopy time (28.2 minutes vs 24.8 minutes, p = 0.037) as compared with TRA. On the other hand, deployment issues were more common in those treated with TRA, but none resulted in permanent complications. CONCLUSIONS: TRA has comparable outcomes, with shorter procedure and fluoroscopy time, to TFA for aneurysm embolization with the WEB device.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".