Subadventitial techniques for chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: The concept of “vessel architecture”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite improvements in guidewire technologies, the traditional antegrade wire escalation approach to chronic total occlusion (CTO) recanalization is successful in only 60-80% of selected cases. In particular, long, calcified, and tortuous occlusions are less successfully approached with a true-to-true lumen approach. Frequently, the guidewire tracks into the subadventitial space, with no guarantee of distal re-entry into the true lumen. The ability to manage the subadventitial space has been a key step in the tremendous improvement in success rates of contemporary CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), whether operating antegradely or retrogradely. A modern approach to CTO PCI involves understanding the concept of "vessel architecture," which is based on the distinction between coronary structures (occlusive plaque, comprising the disrupted intima and media, and the outer adventitia) and extravascular space. The vessel architecture represents a safe work environment for guidewire and device manipulation. This review provides an anatomy-based description of the concept of vessel architecture, along with a historical perspective of subadventitial techniques for CTO PCI, and outcome data of CTO PCI utilizing the subadventitial space. © 2017 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".