Comparison of radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of a radial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in octogenarians is not well established. METHODS: To evaluate the benefits of a radial approach for preventing vascular complications after PCI, clinical, procedural, and outcome data were prospectively collected and compared for 228 octogenarians undergoing elective PCI either through a radial or a femoral approach. RESULTS: Radial approach was associated with longer cannulation (3.1 +/- 2.9 vs. 2.0 +/- 2.0 min, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy times (19.3 +/- 16.1 vs. 16.1 +/- 11.8 min, P = 0.04), greater utilization of contrast media (224 +/- 46 vs. 182 +/- 20 ml, P < 0.001) and higher crossover rate (11 vs 4%, P = 0.03) to alternate access site compared with the femoral approach. However, ambulation time (5.2 +/- 3.1 vs. 11.6 +/- 6.3 hr, P < 0.001), access site bleeding (4 vs. 14%, P = 0.007), hematoma (1 vs. 11%, P = 0.001) or any vascular complication (5 vs 26%, P = 0.001) were significantly reduced with a radial approach. Procedural success rates were equivalent with both approaches. Multivariate regression analysis identified radial approach (OR = 0.23; CI = 0.08, 0.65) as an independent negative predictor of postprocedural vascular complications. CONCLUSION: Radial approach for PCI in octogenarians is technically challenging for the operator and exposes patients to greater volume of nephrotoxic contrast media. However, it results in early ambulation and significantly reduces vascular complications in this high risk population. These findings support a strategy of preprocedural risk assessment and use of radial approach for PCI in a select group of octogenarians to maximize benefits offered by this technique.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it