Incidences of Venous Air Embolism and Patent Foramen Ovale among Patients Undergoing Selective Peripheral Denervation in the Sitting Position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The incidence and severity of venous air embolism (VAE), a potentially fatal complication, among patients undergoing selective peripheral denervation in the sitting position have never been clearly established. We designed this retrospective study to assess the incidence and severity of VAE, the incidence of paradoxical air embolism, and the occurrence of patent foramen ovale, as detected with transesophageal echocardiography, as well as the effects of its detection on patient treatment. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, data were collected from the charts of all patients who underwent selective peripheral denervation at our institution between 1988 and 2001. The severity of VAE was assessed by using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: Data for 342 patients were available for analyses. Seven patients exhibited VAE, yielding an incidence of 2%. The severity of VAE was 2/5 for three patients, 3/5 for three patients, and 4/5 for one patient. Air could be aspirated from the central venous catheter for three patients. No deaths occurred. Among the 96 transesophageal echocardiographic examinations performed, 5 cases of patent foramen ovale were detected (5.2%). For those patients, surgery was performed in the prone or park-bench position. No paradoxical air embolism was detected. CONCLUSION: This is the first large study to directly assess the incidence and severity of VAE among patients undergoing selective peripheral denervation in the sitting position. We recommend that the detection of a patent foramen ovale prompt a change in position for this surgical procedure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".