MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330802229 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2015-308371

Prediction and impact of failure of transradial approach for primary percutaneous coronary intervention

2016· article· en· W2330802229 on OpenAlexafffund
Eltigani Abdelaal, Jimmy MacHaalany, Guillaume Plourde, Alberto Barria Perez, Marie-Pier Bouchard, Mélanie Roy, Jean‐Pierre Déry, Ugo Déry, Gérald Barbeau, Éric Larose, Onil Gleeton, Bernard Noël, Josep Rodés‐Cabau, Louis Roy, Olivier Costerousse, Olivier F. Bertrand

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité Laval
FundersInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Université LavalUniversité Laval
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionCardiologyPercutaneousHeart failureInternal medicineIntervention (counseling)Primary preventionInterventional cardiologyIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineMyocardial infarctionDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine predictors of failure of transradial approach (TRA) in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and develop a novel score specific for this population. METHODS: Consecutive patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI in a tertiary care high-volume radial centre were included. TRA-PCI failure was categorised as primary (primary transfemoral approach (TFA)) or crossover (from TRA to TFA). Multivariate analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of TRA-PCI failure, and an integer risk score was developed. Clinical outcomes up to 1 year were assessed. RESULTS: From January 2006 to January 2011, 2020 patients were studied. Primary TRA-PCI failure occurred in 111 (5%) patients and crossover to TFA in 44 (2.2%) patients. Independent predictors of TRA-PCI failure were: weight ≤65 kg (OR: 3.0; 95% CI 1.9 to 4.8, p<0.0001), physician with ≤5% TFA conversion (OR: 0.45; 95% CI 0.2 to 0.9, p=0.033), and physician with ≥10% conversion to TFA (OR: 2.2; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.7, p=0.005), intra-aortic balloon pump (OR: 2.0; 95% CI 0.9 to 4.3, p=0.066), cardiogenic shock (OR: 2.8; 95% CI 1.4 to 5.6, p=0.0035), endotracheal intubation (OR: 107; 95% CI 42 to 339, p<0.0001), creatinine >133 μmol/L (OR: 3.6; 95% CI 1.9 to 6.8, p<0.0001), age ≥75 (OR: 1.7; 95% CI 1.0 to 2.9, p=0.031), prior PCI (OR: 2.6; 95% CI 1.5 to 4.5, p=0.0009), hypertension (OR: 1.8; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.9, p=0.009). An integer risk score ranging from -1 to 12 was developed, and predicted TRA-PCI failure from 0% to 100% (c-statistic of 0.868; 95% CI 0.866 to 0.869). Mortality at 1 year remained significantly higher after TRA-PCI failure (adjusted OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.9, p=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: In a high-volume radial centre, the incidence of TRA-PCI failure is low and can be accurately predicted using a 9-variables risk score. Since outcomes after TRA-PCI failure remained inferior, further effort to maximise the use of radial approach for primary PCI should be investigated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207