Stent-graft implantation for hepatic arterial bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify the technical and clinical outcomes of stent-graft implantation in patients with hepatic artery bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for publications between 2000 and March 2025 evaluating patients treated with stent-graft implantation for hepatic arterial hemorrhage. The outcome measurements were technical (successful hemostasis with stent-grafts) and clinical success (no rebleeding from hepatic arteries), early mortality, and stent-graft patency during follow-up. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included publications. An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed using the chi-square test or Fischer exact test to identify predictors of stent-graft patency. RESULTS: In total, 351 patients from 22 studies were included. The mean NOS score was 5.4 ± 0.95. Most patients (n = 323) had bleeding after surgery. The technical success rate of stent-graft placement was 94.3%. Patients with technical failure were managed either by surgery (n = 10) or coil embolization of the hepatic artery (n = 10). Rebleeding from hepatic arteries was seen in 24 patients with a clinical success rate of 92.7%. The early mortality rate was 15.6%. Follow-up showed stent-graft patency in 76.5% (202 of 264) of the cases. Most of the stent-graft occlusions (51/62, 82.2%) were asymptomatic. No significant difference was seen in the rate of stent-graft patency between patients receiving acetylsalicylic acid or not, or dual antiplatelet treatment or not. Overlapping stent-grafts (p = 0.009) were significant risk factors for stent-graft occlusion. CONCLUSION: Stent-graft implantation in hepatic arterial bleeding is associated with high technical and clinical success rates. Despite the considerable rate of stent-graft occlusion during follow-up, occlusion is mostly asymptomatic, probably due to collateral development.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".