Primary Self-EXPANDing Nitinol Stenting vs Balloon Angioplasty With Optional Bailout Stenting for the Treatment of Infrapopliteal Artery Disease in Patients With Severe Intermittent Claudication or Critical Limb Ischemia (EXPAND Study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare primary placement of a self-expanding nitinol stent to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with bailout stenting in infrapopliteal arteries of patients with severe intermittent claudication or critical limb ischemia (CLI). METHODS: In the EXPAND trial (ClinicalTrials.gov; identifier NCT00906022), 92 patients (mean age 72.9±9.5 years; 62 men) undergoing treatment for infrapopliteal stenosis in 11 European centers were randomized 1:1 to either self-expanding nitinol stenting with the Astron Pulsar/Pulsar-18 nitinol stent or PTA with bailout stenting. The primary endpoint was sustainable clinical improvement after 12 months, defined as a ≥1-category increase for Rutherford category 3 patients or a ≥2-category increase for CLI patients (Rutherford categories 4/5) compared with baseline. Furthermore, target lesion revascularization (TLR), mortality, and amputation were assessed after 12 months. RESULTS: Sustained clinical improvement at 1 year was observed in 74.3% of the patients treated with primary stenting and in 68.6% of the patients treated with PTA and bailout stenting (p>0.05). Kaplan-Meier estimates of freedom from TLR (76.6% and 77.6%), mortality (7.4% vs 2.1%), and amputation [8.9% (major 6.7%) vs 13.2% (major 8.7%)] at 1 year were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Primary self-expanding nitinol stenting did not show statistically different clinical outcomes compared to angioplasty with bailout stenting for infrapopliteal lesions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".