Infrarenal Aortic Stenosis: Value of Stent Placement after Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term clinical and hemodynamic effectiveness of aortic stent placement in cases of failure of intended infrarenal percutaneous transluminal aortic angioplasty (PTAA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients who underwent technically successful PTAA were compared with 24 patients who underwent aortic stent placement because of PTAA failure (19 patients) or ulcerated lesions (five patients) that otherwise would have been treated surgically because of the embolization hazard associated with PTAA alone. Clinical patency was defined as the absence or improvement of symptoms after the intervention. Hemodynamic patency was defined as a normal Doppler waveform in the common femoral arteries, an ankle-brachial index greater than 0.95, or the absence of a thigh-brachial pressure gradient. RESULTS: Three-year clinical and hemodynamic patency rates, respectively, were 85% and 79% for PTAA and 69% and 43% for aortic stent placement. No morbidity was encountered. With use of the Cox proportional hazards model, two significant risk factors were retained for restenosis: unchanged smoking habit (P =.04) and small dilatation diameter (P =.001). Aortic stent placement, performed in patients with a smaller aortic diameter (10.3 vs. 12.7 mm for PTAA), appeared to be a predictive factor for restenosis by using univariate analysis. By using the Cox proportional hazards model, however, the restenosis rates after PTAA and aortic stent placement were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: When aortic diameter is taken into consideration, there is no evidence that clinical outcome after secondary aortic stent placement would be poorer than technically successful PTAA.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".