Ultrahigh-Pressure Angioplasty versus the Peripheral Cutting Balloon<sup>™</sup> for Treatment of Stenoses in Autogenous Fistulas: Comparison of Immediate Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the immediate results of ultrahigh-pressure (UHP) balloons vs. peripheral cutting balloons (PCB) for the treatment of stenoses associated with autogenous fistulas using intra-access blood flow measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective randomized study consisted of 22 hemodialysis (HD) patients with autogenous fistulas who had decreased intra-access blood flow (<500 mL/min). All patients underwent a fistulogram and intraprocedural blood flow measurements. Patients were randomized once into two groups; one group undergoing UHP angioplasty and the second group undergoing PCB angioplasty. Randomization occurred once after the diagnostic fistulogram and each patient in each arm only underwent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with either UHP or PCB. The study cohort consisted of 12 patients in the UHP group and 10 patients in the PCB group. Data collected included fistula anatomy, degree of stenosis, length of stenosis, balloon specifications and residual stenosis. RESULTS: The 22 study patients underwent 35 angioplasty procedures; 23 in the UHP group (12 patients) and 12 in the PCB group (10 patients). The technical success rate was 91%. The pre-intervention mean blood flow was 288 mL/min in the UHP group and 391 mL/min in the PCB group. The post-intervention mean blood flow was 613 mL/min in the UHP group and 606 mL/min in the PCB group. The mean increase in blood flow was 325.8 mL/min in the UHP group and 213 mL/min in the PCB group. This represents a relative mean increase in blood flow of 253% in the UHP group and 85% in the PCB group. An unpaired t-test showed there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to pre-flow, post-flow, and mean and relative mean increase in flow. There were two failures; one in the UHP group and one in the PCB group. There was one minor complication (2.8%) but no major complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this small group of HD patients with autogenous fistulas our comparison of UHP to the PCB demonstrated that the immediate results, as determined by measurement of intra-access blood flow, were equivalent. Further long-term follow-up will be required to determine the longevity of these results.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".