P079 A comparative study of transradial versus transfemoral access for flow diversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Transradial access (TRA) has slowly gained momentum within the neurointerventional community regarding cerebral angiography and neurointervention. In the recent years, we are seeing more neurointerventional literature showing evidence of the safety and efficacy of using TRA compared to transfemoral (TFA). Radial access is not without limitations including smaller artery size, anatomical variants and lack of radial-specific catheters. Aim of Study To primary aim is to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of intracranial aneurysm treatment with flow diverting stents in patients on dual antiplatelets using transradial compared with transfemoral access Methods We conducted a retrospective 140 consecutive patients who underwent endovascular embolization for intracranial aneurysms using flow diverting stents from January 2019 through January 2023. Patients were divided into two groups: transradial access (63 patients) and TFA (77 patients). A comparative analysis was performed between the two groups. Results There was no significant difference in postoperative ICH, ischemic stroke, or other complications between TRA versus TFA groups. However, access site complications were lower in TRA versus TFA group (4.7 vs. 12.9%, respectively), pridominantly in the form of superficial haematoma. There was no significant difference in complete aneurysm occlusion at 6 and 24 month follow-up DSA or MRA. Conclusion The efficacy of flow diversion via TRA for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms is comparable to TFA. However, access site complications were significantly lower in TRA group. Whenever feasible, adoption of radial approach should be considered in neurointervetional procedures, particularly when dual antiplatelet therapy is used. Disclosure of Interest no.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".