Complications with Angio‐Seal™ Vascular Closure Devices Compared with Manual Compression after Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed and compared vascular complications in CATHs and PCIs using an Angio-Seal™ vascular closure device (VCD) versus manual compression (MC). METHODS: Secondary data analysis of a population-based multiyear cohort database was conducted to compare femoral access-related vascular outcomes in cardiac procedures using VCD and MC between May 1, 2006 and December 31, 2010. The primary outcome was any vascular complication. Propensity score adjusted analysis was conducted to reduce bias associated with covariate imbalance between the groups compared. RESULTS: Of the 11,897 procedures, 7,063 (59.4%) used a VCD. Vascular complications occurred in 174/8,796 (2.0%) of CATHs and 82/3,004 (2.7%) of PCIs. In the CATH sample, the odds of vascular complication were 57% lower if a VCD was used (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.60). For the PCI sample, the risk was 49% lower if a VCD was used (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: A low incidence of vascular complications was observed with the use of an Angio-Seal VCD relative to MC for both procedures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".