The transradial approach during transcatheter structural heart disease interventions: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To review the safety and feasibility of a transradial (TR) approach during transcatheter structural or congenital heart disease interventions when utilized as either as a primary or secondary arterial access site. METHODS AND RESULTS: Studies and case reports published between 2002 and 2014 utilizing the TR access during transcatheter structural and congenital heart disease interventions during alcohol septal ablation (ASA), ventricular septal defect (VSD), renal denervation (RD), paravalvular leak (PVL) closure, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI, secondary access) and endovascular repair of aortic coarctation (ERAC, secondary access) were evaluated. Access-site (femoral vs. TR) vascular and bleeding complications were assessed. Femoral access complications ranged from 0.16% to 40%, with an overall incidence of 2.2% (56/2521). There were 18 reports or studies specifically evaluating the utility of TR access in the context of transcatheter structural heart disease interventions (ASA: 3; VSD: 1; RD: 3; PVL closure: 1; TAVI: 7, ERAC: 3). The use of TR access either as primary or secondary access site was feasible and allowed the completion of the procedure in all cases. The overall incidence of access-site complications following a TR approach was 0.5% (2/406 patients), with no major vascular or bleeding complications. CONCLUSIONS: A TR approach during transcatheter structural heart disease interventions appears to be a safe, effective means of delivering high procedural success accompanied by lower bleeding complications compared with the transfemoral approach.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".