Transvenous embolization of noncavernous dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs): A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundIntracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs) are abnormal connections between arteries and veins within the dura mater. Various treatment modalities, such as surgical ligation, endovascular intervention, and radiosurgery, aim to close the fistulous connection. Although transvenous embolization (TVE) is the preferred method for carotid-cavernous fistulas, its description and outcomes for noncavernous dAVFs vary. This has prompted a systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of TVE in treating noncavernous dAVFs, addressing variations in outcomes and techniques.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Embase, spanning from the earliest records to December 2022, to identify pertinent English-language articles detailing the utilization of TVE. We focused on specific procedural details, outcomes, and complications in patients older than 18 years. The data collected and analyzed comprised the sample size, number of fistulas, publication specifics, presenting symptoms, fistula grades, and pooled rates of embolizations, outcomes, follow-up information, and complications.ResultsFrom a total of 565 screened articles, 15 retrospective articles encompassing 166 patients spanning across seven countries met the inclusion criteria. Their Newcastle-Ottawa scores ranged from 6 to 8. Intraprocedural complication rate was 10% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.9-17.1) and in-hospital postprocedural complication rate was 5.4% (95% CI = 2.8-10.6). Prevalence of in-hospital mortality was 5.5% (95% CI = 2.9-10.6). Complication rate during follow-up was 8.6% (95% CI = 4.7-15.7) with fistula rupture occurring in 5.5% (95% CI = 2.6-11.6) of patients. Complete obliteration rate at final angiographic follow-up was 94.9% (95% CI = 90.3-99.9). Symptoms improved in 95% (95% CI = 89.8-100) of patients at final follow-up.ConclusionTo our knowledge, we present the first meta-analysis assessing obliteration rates, outcomes, and complications of TVE for dAVFs. Our analysis highlights the higher (>90%) complete obliteration rates. Large prospective multicenter studies are needed to better define the utility of TVE for noncavernous 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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".