Vascular hemostasis bandage compared to standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Femoral venous and arterial approaches are the commonly used to obtain vascular access for pediatric cardiac catheterization. Hemostasis after catheter removal is usually obtained by manual compression. However, this technique is time consuming and at times painful. Although several closure devices are available for adults, they are not widely applicable in children. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a microporous polysaccharide hemospheres hemostasis (MPH) bandage compared to manual compression. METHODS: Prospective randomized study, involving 112 children after cardiac catheterization. One group received the MPH bandage, another manual compression. Compression time was predetermined by the size of sheath plus one minute. Success was defined as no bleeding or hematoma formation. If bleeding continued, compression was continued as needed and time to hemostasis recorded. Informed consent was obtained prior to randomization. Group comparisons were performed with a Student's t, Pearson's Chi Square, and Fisher's exact test as appropriate. RESULTS: Fewer children required a compression time of >15 min (P = 0.006) and more had a shorter time to hemostasis (P = 0.003) in the MPH group for venous access control. Time to hemostasis was also shorter in the MPH (P = 0.048) in arterial access cases, but the number of children requiring a compression time >15 min was the same. Complications including hematoma formation in each group were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The MPH bandage allows a shorter time to achieve hemostasis compared to manual compression. This improves turnaround time and laboratory efficiency.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".