MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399671376 · doi:10.1177/15910199241261756

Practical uses of the BENCHMARK™ BMX®81 in the road less travelled: Guide catheter comparison for radial access in neurovascular intervention

2024· article· en· W4399671376 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Marangoni, Ian R. Macdonald, Gwynedd E. Pickett, Adrienne Weeks, Cha-ney Kim, Axel Rohr, William Guest, Manraj K.S. Heran, David Volders

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Neuroradiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurovascular bundleRadial arteryCatheterFluoroscopySurgeryEmbolizationRadiologyArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Radial arterial access has gained interest for neurovascular procedures in recent years. Although there are no randomized control trials for neurointervention procedures using radial access, there is growing literature demonstrating its feasibility and favorable outcomes. Equipment technical improvements, like the recently introduced BENCHMARK™ BMX®81 System, have made radial navigation safer, with improved maneuverability and support for a variety of procedures. We present a multicenter case series highlighting our institutional radial access experience comparing the BMX®81 with alternative catheters. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study of 80 patients who underwent neurovascular procedures through a radial approach. In half of the cases a BENCHMARK™ BMX®81 System was used. The comparison group consisted of the BENCHMARK™071 and 96, Neuron MAX®088 and BALLAST™ systems. Procedures included endovascular thrombectomy, carotid and brachiocephalic artery stenting, middle meningeal artery embolization, flow diverter stenting, vertebral artery sacrifice, aneurysm coiling, and WEB™ device deployment. RESULTS: In our series, the BMX®81 was successful in the navigation of the anatomy to the target location in 95% of cases. No radial access or BMX®81 related complications were identified. There was no significant difference in fluoroscopy time between the BMX81 and the comparison group. Four patients in the comparison group had catheter-related complications due to vasospasm. Eighty-six percent of BMX®81 cases had satisfactory outcomes and no technical difficulties. The remainder presented technical difficulties, but none of these were considered secondary to the puncture site or support structure. CONCLUSIONS: The BENCHMARK™ BMX®81 System is a recently developed guiding catheter which has design and size features supporting radial access for a variety of neurovascular interventions. Early multicenter experience highlights the ease of use and versatility of this new catheter as an alternative to transfemoral access as well as other catheters used for radial access.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.328 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventional NeuroradiologySame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207