MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553325046 · doi:10.1002/ccd.26851

Comparison of radiation exposure during transradial diagnostic coronary angiography with single‐ or multi‐catheters approach

2016· article· en· W2553325046 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Plourde, Eltigani Abdelaal, Jimmy MacHaalany, Goran Rimac, Yann Poirier, Jean Arsenault, Olivier Costerousse, Olivier F. Bertrand

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluoroscopyCatheterRadiation exposureDose area productCoronary angiographyNuclear medicineKermaSingle CenterCardiac catheterizationAngiographyRadiologySurgeryCardiologyDosimetryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To compare radiation exposure during transradial diagnostic coronary angiography (DCA) using standard single‐ or multi‐catheters with different shapes. Background Transradial DCA can be performed using single‐ or multi‐catheters to canulate left and right coronary ostia. To date, it remains unknown whether there are differences in radiation exposure between the two strategies. Methods From November 2012 to June 2014, 3,410 consecutive patients who underwent transradial DCA were recruited. Groups were based on the initial diagnostic catheter used and were dichotomized between single‐ and multi‐catheters approach. All crossovers were excluded. The multi‐catheters approach (Multi) group consisted of Judkins left and right catheters, whereas the single‐catheter (Single) group included Amplatz, Barbeau, or Multipurpose catheters. Fluoroscopy time (FT) as a surrogate end‐point for total radiation exposure and kerma‐area product (KAP; patient radiation exposure) were collected as radiation exposure parameters. Results A single‐catheter strategy was used in 439 patients, while 2,971 patients had a multi‐catheters approach. There was no significant difference in FT between groups (2.86 ± 1.48 min for Multi vs. 2.87 ± 1.72 min for Single, P = 0.13). The multi‐catheters approach was associated with a significant 15% reduction in KAP (3,599 ± 2,214 cGy · cm 2 vs. 3,073 ± 1,785 cGy · cm 2 , P < 0.0001) compared to the single‐catheter approach. When pooling all patients, mean FT was 2.86 ± 1.51 min. Mean KAP was 3,141 ± 1,854 cGy · cm 2 . Reference levels in our institution in both groups were below international diagnostic reference levels. Overall both FT and KAP decreased by 15% and 19%, respectively, over the 2‐year study period. Conclusions Compared to a single‐catheter approach, a multi‐catheters approach with standard Judkins catheters for DCA significantly reduced patient radiation exposure. Whether single catheter designed for DCA by radial approach can further reduce radiation exposure compared to Judkins catheters remains to be compared in randomized studies. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 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 score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207