Reducing bedrest following arterial puncture for coronary interventional procedures--impact on vascular complications: the BAC Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal time for ambulating patients following femoral arterial puncture for percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that reducing time to ambulation from 6 hours to 2 hours would not increase vascular complications. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, single-center trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either 2, 4 or 6 hours (control group) of bedrest after hemostasis was achieved at the femoral arterial puncture site. A total of 354 patients, enrolled from March 1997 to October 1998, participated in the study with 299 completing the full protocol. The primary endpoint was the incidence of vascular complications and any resulting interventions or outcomes including surgery, blood transfusion, prolonged length of stay or ultrasound compression. RESULTS: The 2 hour and 4 hour experimental groups were comprised of 99 patients each, while the 6 hour control group was comprised of 101 patients. There were no differences in vascular complications between the groups. A subgroup analysis of patients who received abciximab (n = 43) did not reveal any differences between groups. Only one patient developed a pseudoaneurysm (p = 0.36), requiring surgical repair and a prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing femoral arterial puncture for coronary interventional procedures can safely ambulate 2 hours after hemostasis of the puncture site. Patients receiving abciximab as part of their coronary procedure may be able to ambulate as early as 2 hours following hemostasis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".