Outcomes of endovascular embolization for Vein of Galen malformations: An individual participant data meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Understanding outcomes after Vein of Galen malformation (VOGM) embolization has been limited by small sample size in reported series and predominantly single center studies. To address these limitations, we perform an individual-participant meta-analysis (IPMA) to identify risk factors associated with all-cause mortality and clinical outcome after VOGM endovascular embolization. Methods We performed a systematic review and IPMA of VOGM endovascular outcomes according to PRISMA guidelines. Individual patient characteristics including demographic, intra/post-operative adverse events, treatment efficacy (partial or complete occlusion), and clinical outcome were collected. Mixed-effects logistic regression with random effects modeling and Bonferroni correction was used (p ≤ 0.003 threshold for statistical significance). The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and poor clinical outcome (moderate/severe developmental delay or permanent disabling injury), respectively. Data are expressed as (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) or (odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), I2, p-value) Results Thirty-five studies totaling 307 participants quantifying outcomes after endovascular embolization for VOGM were included. Follow up time was 42 (±57) months. Our analysis contained 42% neonates (<1 month) at first embolization, 45% infants (1 month ≤2 years), and 13% children (>2 years). Complete occlusion was reported in 48% of participants. Overall all-cause mortality was 16%. Overall, good clinical outcome was achieved in 68% of participants. First embolization as a neonate [OR = 6.93; 95% CI (1.99–24.08); I2 < 0.01; p < 0.001] and incomplete embolization [OR = 10.87; 95% CI (1.86–63.55); I2 < 0.01; p < 0.001] were associated with mortality. First embolization as a neonate [OR = 3.24; 95% CI (1.47–7.15); I2 < 0.01; p < 0.001], incomplete embolization [OR = 5.26; 95% CI (2.06–13.43); I2 < 0.01; p < 0.001], and heart failure at presentation [OR = 3.10; 95% CI (1.03–9.33); I2 < 0.01; p = 0.002] were associated with poor clinical outcomes. Sex, angioarchitecture of lesion, embolization approach (transvenous vs. transarterial), and single or multistage embolization were not associated with mortality or clinical outcome. Conclusions We identify incomplete VOGM embolization independently associated with mortality and poor clinical outcome. While this study provides the highest level of evidence for VOGM embolization to date, prospective multicenter studies are needed to understand the optimal treatment strategies, outcomes, and natural history after VOGM embolization.
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 | 0.023 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".