E-193 Practical uses of the benchmark™ BMX™ 81 in the road less travelled: radial access for neurovascular intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> 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 multicentre case series highlighting our early institutional experience with this guiding catheter. <h3>Methods</h3> Retrospective cohort study: 40 patients underwent neurovascular procedures through a radial approach, using the BENCHMARK™ BMX®81 System, from April 2023-January 2024 in two sites. In 14 cases, it was used as a primary sheath and in 26 cases, it was advanced through a 7 French Glidesheath Slender™ radial sheath. Procedures included endovascular thrombectomy, carotid and brachiocephalic artery stenting, middle meningeal artery (MMA) embolization, flow diverter stenting, vertebral artery sacrifice, aneurysm coiling, and WEB™ device deployment. <h3>Results</h3> In our series, the BMX®81 was successful in the navigation of the anatomy to the target location in 95% of cases. In one case, the radial approach proved unsuitable due to challenging arch anatomy, and in another a radial loop required ulnar approach conversion. No radial access or BMX®81 related complications were identified. 86% of 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. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The BENCHMARK™ BMX®81 System is a recently developed guiding catheter which can be used for radial access, providing support and navigability for a variety of neurovascular interventions. Early multicenter experience highlights the ease of use and versatility as an alternative to transfemoral access. <h3>Disclosures</h3> <b>M. Marangoni:</b> None. <b>I. Macdonald:</b> None. <b>G. PIckett:</b> None. <b>A. Weeks:</b> None. <b>C. Kim:</b> None. <b>A. Rohr:</b> None. <b>W. Guest:</b> None. <b>M. Heran:</b> None. <b>D. Volders:</b> 2; C; Penumbra.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".