Efficacy and Safety of the GuideLiner Mother‐in‐Child Guide Catheter Extension in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures are increasingly performed on complex tortuous and heavily calcified coronary lesions. The GuideLiner® catheter (Vascular Solutions, Inc. Minneapolis, MN) is a rapid exchange guide catheter extension system. There is paucity of data about the efficacy of this device in complex PCI. Therefore, we aim to report the indications, success, and efficacy of GuideLiner use in treating complex lesion subset in the present study. METHODS: We collected data from all patients in whom the GuideLiner was used to facilitate PCI between April 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014 at a tertiary referral center in Toronto, Canada. Demographic and procedural data were obtained from an institutional prospective data registry. Indications for use of the GuideLiner, and angiographic and procedural data specific to the device were also collected. RESULTS: The GuideLiner was utilized in 307 (317 lesions) of 6105 PCI procedures performed at our institution during the study period. The mean age was 68.4 ± 11.2 years and 82% were male. The majority of lesions were types B2 or C (98%), calcified (86.3%), with proximal tortuosity (88.6%). The overall technical success rate of the GuideLiner was 88%. The procedural success rate was 98.7%. The complication rate was low (1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the GuideLiner catheter facilitated successful completion of PCI procedures in a majority of patients with complex lesions. Operators should be aware of the potential complications associated with GuideLiner use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".