Transvenous Approach for the Treatment of Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations: A Randomized Comparison With Transarterial Embolization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transvenous embolization (TVE) is a new treatment of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). The safety and efficacy of TVE have not been compared with transarterial embolization (TAE). The primary hypothesis of this trial was that TVE would increase the proportion of AVM occlusion from 40% to 80%. METHODS: The TATAM (Transvenous Approach for the Treatment of Cerebral AVMs) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, phase 2, open-label, controlled randomized trial comparing TVE versus TAE alone (1:1). Patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic AVMs considered curable with 2 endovascular sessions were reviewed by a case selection committee. Participating centers were experienced (>20 cases) or proctored by experts. The primary outcome was complete occlusion of the AVM, confirmed by catheter angiography at 3 to 6 months. There was no blinding. Primary analyses were intent-to-treat. RESULTS: From May 2019 to April 2023, 77 patients were recruited in 7 French and 2 Canadian centers. After exclusions, results from 69 patients were analyzed; 35 were allocated TVE and 34 TAE. The mean age of participants was 43.3 years; 29 of 69 (42%) were female. There were 2 crossovers. The primary outcome was reached in 29 of 35 patients with TVE (83% [95% CI, 67%–92%]) compared with 20 of 34 patients allocated TAE (59% [95% CI, 42%–74%]; P =0.036). Poor outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score >2 at 3–6 months) occurred in 7 of 35 patients with TVE (20% [95% CI, 10%–36%]) and 9 of 34 patients with TAE (27% [95% CI, 15%–43%]; P =0.578) and related serious adverse events in 12 of 35 patients with TVE (34% [95% CI, 21%–51%]) and 14 of 34 patients with TAE (41% [95% CI, 26%–58%]; P =0.624). CONCLUSIONS: TVE was more effective than TAE in terms of angiographic results at 3 to 6 months. Morbidity was similar but high for both groups. More studies are needed to determine the role of curative embolization in managing patients with brain AVM. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03691870.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".