MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403614485 · doi:10.21037/cdt-24-157

The efficacy, safety, and related factors of bronchial artery embolization for hemoptysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis with subgroup analysis

2024· review· en· W4403614485 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yinghui Tao, Jiaying Li, Ruisi Su, Minhui Zhou, Haonan Zhu, Zhichao Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Anomalies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersZhejiang Chinese Medical University
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisBronchial arterySubgroup analysisEmbolizationSystematic reviewPooled analysisInternal medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Bronchial artery embolization (BAE) is a common and important way to manage hemoptysis. This study’s purpose was to summarize the efficacy, safety, and related factors of BAE in the treatment of hemoptysis. Methods: From January 2010 to August 2023, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Original studies with BAE for hemoptysis were included, with no restrictions on language. The outcomes of interest were technical success rate, clinical success rate, recurrence rate, mortality rate, and major complication rate. Pooled proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was employed for quality assessment. Factors such as publication year, region, sample size, amount of hemoptysis, etiology, and embolization materials were extracted for subgroup analyses. Additionally, sensitivity analyses and test for publication bias were conducted. Results: A total of 32 studies, including 6,032 patients, met our inclusion criteria. 27 studies were of high quality, while five of moderate quality. The results indicated the prevalence of technical success was 97.2% (95% CI: 95.1–98.8%) and 93.2% (95% CI: 90.3–95.7%) in clinical success. Hemoptysis recurrence and mortality rates after BAE were 24.8% (95% CI: 20.5–29.4%) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1.1–3.8%), respectively. Moreover, the pooled prevalence of major complication was 0.1% (95% CI: 0.0–0.4%). Subgroup analysis revealed that studies published after 2017 demonstrated a higher technical success rate and a lower recurrence rate. Massive hemoptysis showed a higher technical success rate but a lower clinical success rate. BAE also demonstrated superior efficacy in patients with bronchiectasis. The clinical success rate was significantly higher in patients with benign diseases than those with malignancies. Gelatin sponge (GS) showed poor embolization efficacy. N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate (NBCA) and coils exhibited reduced recurrence rates, while NBCA displayed an even lower recurrence rate than non-absorbable particles. The study by Ishikawa et al. influenced the stability of the pooled major complication rate, and the sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the remaining results. Conclusions: BAE is safe and effective in treating different degrees of hemoptysis caused by benign and malignant lesions. Promising clinical efficacy was observed with NBCA as an embolic material for the treatment of hemoptysis. However, further conclusions should be investigated using evidence-based medicine.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.013
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular Diagnosis and TherapySame topicVascular Anomalies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207