MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315436316 · doi:10.1177/15266028221147451

Vascular Closure Devices For Axillary Artery Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4315436316 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Koziarz, Sean A. Kennedy, Ghassan Awad El-Karim, Kong Teng Tan, George Oreopoulos, Sanjog Kalra, Christian D. Etz, Dheeraj K. Rajan, Sebastian Mafeld

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endovascular Therapy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioPseudoaneurysmConfidence intervalHematomaAxillary arterySurgeryMeta-analysisObservational studyAneurysmInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To evaluate the technical success and complication rates of vascular closure devices (VCDs) in the axillary artery. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched independently by two reviewers to identify observational studies from inception through October 2021. The following outcomes were meta-analyzed: technical success, hematoma, dissection, pseudoaneurysm, infection, and local neurological complications. Complications were also graded as mild, moderate, and severe. A logistic regression evaluating the influence of sheath size for the outcome of technical success rate was performed using individual patient–level data. Results: Of 1496 unique records, 20 observational studies were included, totaling 915 unique arterial access sites. Pooled estimates were as follows: technical success 84.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78%–89.7%, I 2 =60.4%), hematoma 7.9% (95% CI: 5.8%–10.6%, I 2 =0%), dissection 3.1% (95% CI: 1.3%–7.3%, I 2 =0%), pseudoaneurysm 2.7% (95% CI: 1.3%–5.7%, I 2 =0%), infection <1% (95% CI: 0%–5.7%, I 2 =20.5%), and local neurological complications 2.7% (95% CI: 1.7%–4.4%, I 2 =0%). There was a significant negative association between sheath size and technical success rate (odds ratio [OR]: 0.87 per 1 French (Fr) increase in sheath size, 95% CI: 0.80–0.94, p=0.0005). Larger sheath sizes were associated with a greater number of access-site complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.21 per 1 Fr increase sheath size, 95% CI: 1.04–1.40, p=0.013). Conclusions: Off-label use of VCDs in the axillary artery provides an 85% successful closure rate and variable complication rate, depending on the primary procedure and sheath size. Larger sheaths were associated with a lower technical success and greater rate of access-related complications. Clinical Impact Safe arterial access is the foundation for arterial intervention. While the common femoral artery is a well established access site, alternative arterial access sites capable of larger sheath sizes are needed in the modern endovascular era. This article provides the largest synthesis to date on the use of vascular closure devices for percutaneous axillary artery access in endovascular intervention. It should serve clinicians with added confidence around this approach in terms of providing a reference for technical success and complications. Clinically, this data is relevant for patient consent purposes as well as for practice quality improvement in setting safety standards for this access site.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.025
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Endovascular TherapySame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207