Transarterial Embolization of Dural Arteriovenous Fistulas: Conventional, Pressure Cooker, and Microballoon Catheter Embolization Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dural fistulas are abnormal connections between dural arteries and intracranial veins treated mainly endovascularly in most settings. The aim was to examine a single-institution experience of microballoon catheter transarterial embolization (TAE) of dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs) and compare it with other TAE techniques. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all dAVFs treated at our institution between 2017 and 2022 with microballoon, conventional, and pressure cooker TAE. We studied occlusion and retreatment rates, treatment-related complications, and radiation doses. RESULTS: During the study period, 66 patients underwent 75 TAE procedures to treat 68 dAVFs: 47 conventional TAE, 14 pressure cooker TAE, and 14 microballoon TAE. Median age of the study population was 63 years with 32% females. The most common dAVF location was the transverse sinus and 20% of dAVFs presented with hemorrhage. At 3-month follow-up, stable complete occlusion of the dAVF was seen in 72% (n = 34) after conventional TAE, 79% (n = 11) after pressure cooker TAE, and 86% (n = 12) after microballoon TAE. Retreatment was required in 19% (n = 9) after conventional TAE, 7% (n = 1) after pressure cooker TAE, and 7% (n = 1) after microballoon TAE. Treatment-related complications occurred in 17% (n =) after conventional TAE, 29% (n = 4) after pressure cooker TAE, and 7% (n = 1) after microballoon TAE. CONCLUSION: In our experience, microballoon TAE of dAVFs resulted in better initial and 3-month angiographic outcomes and required less retreatment than conventional TAE. Microballoon TAE also resulted in fewer treatment-related complications than other techniques. In our experience, microballoon TAE is a reliable and safe endovascular technique to treat dAVFs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".