MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413022347 · doi:10.1002/ccd.70070

The Utilization of Superficial Femoral Artery Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Peripheral Vascular Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2025· review· en· W4413022347 on OpenAlexaff
Prasham Dave, A. Alfaifi, Bryan Traynor, Thomas Attumalil, Gianluigi Bisleri, David Latter, Djeven P. Deva, Mark Wheatcroft, Géraldine Ong, Waleed Alhazzani, Neil Fam, Sami M. Alnasser

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyRandomized controlled trialFemoral arteryMeta-analysisCardiologyOdds ratioInternal medicineValve replacementClinical endpointSurgeryStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The superficial femoral artery (SFA) is a vascular access alternative for various cardiovascular interventions, especially when the common femoral artery CFA is deep, calcified or in high bifurcation. SFA use, however, was associated with pseudoaneurysms in older literature, and its utilization for large-bore access is not well established. We conducted a systematic review, including randomized and observational studies that reported on SFA vascular access for peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) from inception until October 2024. The pooled weighted averages of SFA-related vascular complications were calculated. In addition, the random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) comparison between SFA and CFA across the included studies. The primary endpoint was vascular complications. The search yielded 1269 articles; 27 (22 in PAD, 5 in TAVR) met our pre-specified inclusion criteria. Among the PAD studies, 19 were observational, and three were randomized clinical trials. The weighted averages for vascular complications and pseudoaneurysms were 9.8% (95% CI 6.1%-15.6%) and 2.7% (95% CI 1.5%-4.9%), respectively. The meta-analysis included six studies (five observational and one randomized) that compared outcomes of SFA (838 patients) and CFA (604 patients) and showed no significant difference in the rates of vascular complications (5.4% in the SFA group and 6.4% in the CFA group, OR 0.71, 95% CI [0.40-1.27]; p = 0.25%). Among the TAVR studies, SFA was used as the primary access in 18 patients, with no significant bleeding, vascular complications, or unplanned interventions. In this analysis, SFA access was associated with good safety in selected patients undergoing peripheral arterial procedures (low to intermediate risk of bias). It was also feasible as the primary access route for TAVR in a very small, highly selected group with unfavorable CFA anatomy (high risk of bias) and therefore is hypothesis-generating, requiring validation in larger studies.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.023
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207