Angio-Seal in Antegrade Endovascular Interventions: Technical Success and Complications in a 55-Patient Series
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the technical success and complications of Angio-Seal vascular closure device in antegrade common femoral artery (CFA) punctures. METHODS: Over a 14-month period, 55 patients (37 men; age range 37-94 years) underwent antegrade CFA Angio-Seal placement at a single center; the clinical data and angiograms were reviewed retrospectively. A total of 56 antegrade CFA punctures were made for hemostasis; 6-F Angio-Seal devices (40 model STS and 12 model VIP) were deployed in 52 CFAs, and 8-F Angio-Seal devices were deployed in 4. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 98.2% (55/56). Two (3.6%) patients developed small, non-expanding hematomas (<5 cm) during deployment of the device. There was 1 episode of device/operator failure, presumably due to extravascular deployment within soft tissue. None of the patients developed pseudoaneurysm, arterial injury, or large hematomas requiring transfusion. Small calcified plaques at the puncture site did not influence the outcome. CONCLUSION: This series suggests that Angio-Seal may be a safe and effective device for hemostasis in antegrade CFA punctures. Further randomized trials testing its risk-benefit balance in comparison to standard manual compression are warranted.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it