Bleeding complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing early invasive management can be reduced with radial access, smaller sheath sizes, and timely sheath removal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to analyze the impact of arterial access site, sheath size, timing of sheath removal, and use of access site closure devices on high-risk patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: In the SYNERGY trial, 9,978 patients with ACS were randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. METHODS: This analysis includes 9,404 patients for whom sheath access information was obtained for the first PCI procedure or diagnostic catheterization. Comparisons of baseline, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were carried out according to access site and sheath size. RESULTS: Overall, 9,404 (94%) patients underwent angiography at a median of 21 hr (25th and 75th percentiles: 5, 42) and 4,687 (50%) underwent PCI at a median of 23 hr (6,49) of enrollment. The access site was femoral for 94.9% of cases, radial for 4.4%, and brachial for 0.7%. Radial access was associated with fewer transfusions than femoral access (0.9% vs. 4.8%, P=0.007). For femoral access, the rates of noncoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-related TIMI major bleeding by sheath size was 1.5% for 4 or 5 French (Fr), 1.6% for 6 Fr, 3.3% for 7 Fr, and 3.8% for >or=8 Fr (P<0.0001). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, femoral access site, larger sheath size, and delayed sheath removal were independent predictors of need for transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Smaller sheaths, radial access, and timely sheath removal may mitigate the bleeding risk associated with potent antithrombotic/platelet therapy and early catheterization.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".