Rotational atherectomy through the radial artery is associated with similar procedural success when compared with the transfemoral route
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".