Retrograde recanalization of chronic total occlusions from the transradial approach; Early canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Retrograde approach for chronic total occlusions (CTO) improves recanalization success rates. Eight French (Fr) catheters and the femoral approach are advocated. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate whether transradial operators can achieve similar success rates using smaller catheters. METHODS: This is a single-operator series of 42 consecutive cases performed between January and December 2010, including 13 while demonstrating CTO recanalization. Patients were referred because of complexity of the CTO or after failed attempt. RESULTS: Most frequent indications for recanalization were CCS 3-4 angina (52%) and CCS 1-2 in 21%. Eighteen (43%) patients underwent previous failed attempts. CTO was in the right coronary in 74%, left anterior descending in 24%, and a left main in 1. Most lesions (88%) were ≥20 mm long and 52% were calcified. We used septal collateral channels (CC) in 33 (79%), epicardial CC in 8 (20%), and a saphenous vein graft in one case. Radial access was used in all patients and was bilateral in 37 (88%). Five cases required one radial and one femoral access. Six French guides were used in 91% for the retrograde side and 71% for the antegrade side. Otherwise, 7 Fr guides were used. The Corsair(®) was used in 38 (90%). Procedural success was achieved in 37 (88%), mostly using reverse controlled antegrade-retrograde tracking (60%) or retrograde crossing (29%). The average <24-h Hb drop was 0.75 ± 0.84 g/dl. No in-hospital major cardiac events occurred. CONCLUSION: Transradial retrograde CTO recanalization is feasible, safe, and still associated with high success rates despite the use of smaller guide catheters.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".