MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003617937 · doi:10.1002/ccd.10195

Immediate protamine administration and sheath removal following percutaneous coronary intervention: A prospective study of 429 patients

2002· article· en· W2003617937 on OpenAlexaff
John Ducas, Michael Chan, Anthony B. Miller, Tarek Kashour

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface HospitalManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionGroinHemostasisSurgeryPseudoaneurysmRestenosisCreatine kinaseCardiologyStentInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the approach of reversing anticoagulation following PCI and immediate sheath removal in 429 consecutive patients. On completion of the PCI, protamine was administered, and the vascular sheath was immediately removed. Stents were used in 364 patients (85%) and GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in 52 patients (12%). Time to achieve hemostasis was 30 +/- 17 min. Minor groin bleeding occurred in six patients. One patient required repair of femoral pseudoaneurysm. Mean creatine kinase at 8 and 16 hr post-PCI were 129 +/- 35 and 145 +/- 32 units, respectively. Creatine kinase rose to > 3 times normal in 12 out of 350 patients (3.4%). Prior to 48 hr, eight patients (1.9%) required emergency PCI or coronary bypass surgery. Follow-up at 30 days observed no deaths and only three target vessel revascularizations (0.7%). In conclusion, immediate reversal of anticoagulation and sheath removal after PCI is safe and feasible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations31
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207