Chronic kidney injury in patients after cardiac catheterisation or percutaneous coronary intervention: a comparison of radial and femoral approaches (from the British Columbia Cardiac and Renal Registries)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a well-recognised complication of cardiac catheterisation and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) after catheterisation and PCI has not been fully evaluated. A number of risk factors have been implicated in the development of AKI following cardiac catheterisation. Transradial access could lead to a lower incidence of CKD after catheterisation or PCI because of less catheter contact with aortic atheroma, and reduced potential for atheroembolism. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of CKD onset and its association with arterial access in patients after cardiac catheterisation or PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Linkages between the British Columbia (BC) Cardiac Registry (N=69 214) patients who underwent catheterisation or PCI between 1999 and 2005 and the BC Renal Database were determined. Within 6 months after the cardiac procedure 0.4% of patients developed dialysis dependency, 0.2% in the transradial versus 0.4% in the transfemoral group (p<0.0001); 0.3% of patients developed stage 4 or 5 CKD, 0.1% in the transradial versus 0.4% in the transfemoral group (p<0.0001); 0.9% of patients developed new CKD, 0.2% in the transradial versus 1.2% in the transfemoral group (p<0.0001). After adjusting for baseline characteristics the femoral access site had an OR of 4.36 (95% CI 2.48 to 7.66) for the development of the composite end point of new dialysis, new stage 4 or 5 CKD or new CKD. CONCLUSIONS: In this large database of current practice coronary catheterisation and PCI, the incidence of CKD onset within 6 months of the procedure was 0.9%. The transradial access site is associated with less CKD than the femoral 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".