MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417397317 · doi:10.1016/j.jvsvi.2025.100341

Comparison of patient outcomes following endovascular vs surgical management of infrainguinal autogenous bypass stenosis

2025· article· en· W4417397317 on OpenAlexaff
Meghan McGillivray, Ningzhi Gu, Mark Tatangelo, Jason Faulds, Jonathan Misskey

Bibliographic record

VenueJVS-Vascular Insights · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStenosisRetrospective cohort studyCohortCritical limb ischemiaLesionAdverse effectTarget lesion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of open vs endovascular intervention for infrainguinal bypass stenosis. Methods A single-institution retrospective review of infrainguinal bypass stenosis cases from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, was conducted. Data collected included index bypass operation, lesion characteristics, reintervention, and patient outcomes. Results Of the 146 patients included, 40% underwent open intervention, whereas 60% underwent endovascular intervention. There were no significant differences between the index bypasses of each cohort with respect to inflow, outflow, conduit, or primary patency. The severity of stenotic lesions in open and endovascular cohorts was >70% severity on duplex ultrasound in 76% and 78% of patients, respectively ( P = .02). Lesion location was not significantly different between cohorts with 48% proximal, 27% distal, 8% midgraft, 3% venovenostomy, and 14% multiple stenotic lesions. There was no significant difference in primary revision patency in open vs endovascular intervention (1109 vs 809 days; P = .09). The average number of repeat interventions was not significantly different (0.47 vs 0.58 times; P = .48); however, the average cumulative hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for patients who underwent endovascular intervention (8.21 vs 5.22 days; P = .02). During the study period, a comparable portion of patients in open and endovascular cohorts went on to have failed bypass grafts (17% vs 18%) with no significant difference in the total time to graft failure in these subgroups (860 vs 1144 days; P = .47). There were no significant differences in major adverse limb events (12% vs 8%; P = .59) or mortality (47% vs 40%; P = .52). Conclusions Open and endovascular interventions for infrainguinal bypass stenosis showed no significant differences in primary revision patency, graft failure rates, major adverse limb events, or mortality. Endovascular intervention was associated with shorter cumulative hospital stays for reintervention.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueJVS-Vascular InsightsSame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207