A comparison of the radial and the femoral approach in vein graft PCI. A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transradial PCI is a safe and effective method of percutaneous revascularization. However, there is limited data on the efficacy of the transradial approach for saphenous vein graft (SVG) PCI. METHODS: We studied 334 patients who underwent SVG PCI between January 2000 and December 2003, and compared the radial (132 patients) and the femoral (202 patients) approach. RESULTS: Mean EF (55.6+/-18.6% radial versus 58.1+/-16.8% femoral), lesion location (proximal, mid, distal: 22.6/50.6/26.7% versus 22.6/44.5/32.9% respectively) and lesion type (B1/B2/C: 3.4/4.1/92.5% versus 0.4/3.1/96.5%) were similar in both groups (P>0.05). Five patients had a failed radial attempt (3.8%) and were switched to the femoral approach. Mean fluoroscopy time (20.4+/-12.2 versus 18.4+/-10.2 min), procedural time (60.0+/-27.2 versus 61.6+/-24.9 min) and the use of contrast (223+/-91 versus 234+/-91 ml) IIB/IIIA inhibitors (27.2 versus 33.2%), and stenting (81.5 versus 81.3%) were similar in both groups, whereas 5 or 6 French sheaths were used more often in the radial group (83.4 versus 64.9%, P<0.01). Angiographic success (93.9 versus 92.9%), in hospital MACE (radial:5 MI (3.8%) versus femoral: 1 death (0.5%) and 7 MI (3.5%) and major vascular complications (0.7 versus 0.5%) were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: The radial approach in SVG PCI is as fast and successful as the femoral.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".