SUPERA Stenting in the Common Femoral Artery: Early Experience and Practical Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Endovascular therapy in the management of de novo common femoral disease remains controversial. Considerable interest has been generated in recent years due to recent technological advancement in the design of vascular stents. In particular, SUPERA (Abbot Vascular Inc, Santa Clara USA) stents are designed to offer increased flexibility and less adverse interactions with the arterial wall, thus making it potentially better suited for common femoral lesions. However, despite such theoretical advantages, there is lack of data in its use in clinical practice. This study provides illustrative examples of SUPERA stents in different clinical settings and contributes to important clinical data for the overall efficacy and safety profile of endovascular interventions in common femoral artery (CFA) disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all endovascular CFA procedures between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019, was conducted. Data collected included demographics, clinical symptoms, medical comorbidities, procedural characteristics, and immediate and short-term complications. Detailed analysis was performed on the stenting cohort. RESULTS: During our study period, a total of 69 patients underwent endovascular interventions involving the CFA at our institution, of which 16 patients had stenting procedures for a total of 18 stent deployments. Technical success was achieved in all stenting procedures. A total of 15 SUPERA stents were placed in 13 patients. No stent fractures were observed. Overall primary patency rate of SUPERA stents at the time of 12-month follow-up was 100% in patients who had a follow-up assessment (n = 12 stents). CONCLUSION: Endovascular intervention of the CFA is an evolving topic in the interventional radiology and vascular surgery community. Recent development of newer generation of devices such as SUPERA peripheral stents offers significant potential benefits given their inherent design. Despite the theoretically promising design of the SUPERA, there is a lack of data to support its use. This study contributes important patient-level data for SUPERA stent deployments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".