Remaining challenges and opportunities for improvement in percutaneous transradial coronary procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of transradial coronary angiography and coronary intervention is growing because of emerging data on its potential advantages over the femoral approach. As the adoption of radial procedures increases, it is important to understand the remaining challenges of both the technique and its implementation. In this review, we discuss four important issues related to transradial procedures--radial access site bleeding, radial artery injury and occlusion, radiation exposure, and implementation of a successful transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) programme. Although the radial artery is superficial and haemostasis can be achieved readily, access site bleeding can occur that, if left unchecked, can lead to forearm haematoma and, rarely, to compartment syndrome. Radial artery injury and occlusion are consequences of radial access, and randomized trials show that use of smaller diameter sheaths, adequate anticoagulation, and post-procedure 'patent' haemostasis reduce the risk of occlusion. The published literature demonstrates an association between transradial procedures and increased radiation exposure; therefore, reduction of radiation dosing during transradial procedures should be a priority for operators and catheterization laboratories. The potential reduction in mortality seen with transradial primary PCI must be balanced against the clinical imperative of timely reperfusion. Operators and catheterization laboratories should not begin a transradial primary PCI programme until sufficient radial experience has been gained in the elective setting. In addition, a protocol for femoral bailout should be considered to maintain door-to-reperfusion metrics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".