MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325201786 · doi:10.1097/mca.0000000000000198

Rotational atherectomy through the radial artery is associated with similar procedural success when compared with the transfemoral route

2014· article· en· W2325201786 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCoronary Artery Disease · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluoroscopyPercutaneous coronary interventionRadial arteryFemoral arteryAtherectomyPercutaneousSignificant differenceNuclear medicineProspective cohort studyCoronary artery diseaseSurgeryCardiologyInternal medicineArteryStent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Rotational atherectomy (RA) has traditionally been carried out using 7 or 8 Fr guides through a transfemoral approach to allow for passage of 2.0 mm burrs or larger. With transradial percutaneous coronary intervention becoming more common, our aim was to investigate whether transradial RA would offer equivalent rates of procedural success when compared with transfemoral RA. METHODS: Using a prospective percutaneous coronary intervention registry, we identified all patients who had undergone RA at the University Health Network between January 2001 and December 2012 and compared those in whom the transfemoral approach had been used with those in whom the transradial approach had been used. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were analyzed (67 femoral, 52 radial). Larger guides were used in the femoral group compared with the radial group (6.79 vs. 6.31 Fr, P<0.001), but there was no significant difference in the number of burrs used or the average size of the burrs. There was no significant difference in the procedural success rate (91 vs. 96%, P=0.46), fluoroscopy time (40.5 vs. 43.8 min, P=0.37), radiation dose (27743 vs. 29939 cGy cm, P=0.50), or contrast use (429 vs. 384 ml, P=0.19) between the two groups. Patients in the femoral group were more likely to have a transvenous pacing wire inserted (25 vs. 6%, P=0.006). Access site crossover tended to occur more frequently in the radial group (6 vs. 0%, P=0.08). CONCLUSION: We have shown that RA through the transradial route is associated with outcomes similar to those achieved through the transfemoral route. Keeping in mind the single-center context and the small number of operators, our data do not suggest an increased rate of failure of RA through the radial route despite the use of smaller guiding catheters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it