Transjugular approach in aspiration thrombectomy and angioplasty of a thrombosed straight arteriovenous graft compared to the direct hemodialysis access approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and outcome of the transjugular approach in endovascular recanalization of a thrombosed straight arteriovenous graft (AVG) compared to those of the direct hemodialysis access approach (conventional approach). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed patients who underwent aspiration thrombectomy and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for thrombosed straight AVG performed at a single institution between October 2006 and October 2021. A total of 138 thrombosed AVGs in 83 patients (39 male and 44 females) were divided into the transjugular approach group (Group A) and the conventional approach group (Group B). Technical and clinical success, postintervention primary patency, cumulative patency, and periprocedural complications were compared. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in demographic data between groups A and B. The technical success rate of group A and B was 96.4% (80/83) and 98.2% 54/55, respectively (p > 0.05). The mean procedure time was 61.4 min (Group A) and 70.5 min (Group B) (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in postintervention primary patency. The cumulative patency of Groups A and B was 911.9 days (range 122-6277) and 1062.3 days (range 72-2302 days), respectively (p > 0.05). One patient in Group B experienced a major graft rupture. Pseudoaneurysm formation at the sheath insertion site occurred in two patients in Group B. No cases of stenosis or thrombosis of the IJV or hematoma at the puncture site were observed in Group A. CONCLUSION: The transjugular approach is as safe and effective as the conventional approach for aspiration thrombectomy and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of thrombosed straight AVGs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".