Should interventional cardiac catheterization procedures take place at the time of diagnostic procedures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In many cardiac catheterization laboratories interventional procedures are performed at a date later than the diagnostic study, causing increased hospital days and costs. Few data exist which compare procedural success, complications, and costs between procedures performed at the time of diagnostic study and those performed later. HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and success of same-day interventional procedures and to quantitate hospital cost savings with this strategy. METHOD: In all, 357 consecutive patients who underwent an elective interventional procedure of a native coronary artery either at the time of diagnostic study (same day, n = 244) or later (delayed, n = 113) were reviewed. Procedural success [< 30% residual lesion post-percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or 0% residual lesion post-stent], major complications [death, emergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), myocardial infarction, and ventricular fibrillation], hospital days, and costs were analyzed. Procedural expense, including the diagnostic and interventional procedure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory, and hospital expense were analyzed. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in terms of age, gender, coronary risk factors, indications (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, abnormal stress test), the culprit coronary artery, type of intervention (PTCA, stent), and lesion complexity (type A, B, C). The average hospital stay for the two groups was 4.37 +/- 2 and 6.55 +/- 2.4 days, respectively (p < 0.0001). The procedural charges were $8,207.99 and 10,581.87, respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Catheter intervention performed at the same time as the diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedure is as successful and as safe as that performed at a later date. Hospital stay and costs, as well as procedural expenses are significantly reduced by this practice.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".