MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985120128 · doi:10.1002/ccd.20958

Fatal ischemic stroke related to nonpermissive peripheral artery access for percutaneous aortic valve replacement

2006· article· en· W1985120128 on OpenAlexafffund
Colin Berry, Raymond Cartier, Raoul Bonan

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
FundersBritish Heart FoundationInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalMedtronic EuropeMedtronic
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneousCardiologySurgeryVentricular outflow tractAortic valve replacementInternal medicineVentricleAortic valveRadiologyStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report describes an 85 year-old man who underwent percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR). With a logistic euroSCORE of 37%, the patient had been refused surgical aortic valve replacement because of an unacceptably high peri-operative risk. During the PAVR procedure, severe resistance was encountered when advancing the 21 Fr delivery catheter through the left iliac artery despite pre-dilatation with a 7 mm balloon. Following this, PAVR was promptly achieved without difficulty, with excellent valve positioning, no peri-valvular leak and good hemodynamics. However, transesophageal echocardiography revealed a mobile echogenic mass within the outflow tract of the left ventricle. The mass was retrieved with a cardiac bioptome manipulated via the left femoral artery through a 9 Fr sheath. A right cerebral ischemic stroke manifested shortly after the post-procedure and the patient died on the fourth post-operative day. Post-mortem findings revealed a left subclavian artery occlusion by iliac vascular tissue. This report highlights the imperative for device-specific vascular access screening criteria and the need to minimize device size in order to safely accomplish PAVR.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207