MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626389431 · doi:10.1177/1526602817714570

Comparison of Direct Iliofemoral Stenting Following AngioJet Rheolytic Thrombectomy vs Staged Stenting After AngioJet Rheolytic Thrombectomy Plus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in Patients With Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis

2017· article· en· W2626389431 on OpenAlexaff
Guang Liu, Jinbao Qin, Chaoyi Cui, Kaichuang Ye, Huihua Shi, Xiaobing Liu, Minyi Yin, Xintian Huang, Min Lü, Mier Jiang, Weimin Li, Xinwu Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endovascular Therapy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisSurgeryThrombosisStenosisDeep veinCatheterVenous thrombosisRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To compare the treatment outcomes in patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and iliofemoral stenosis who underwent either direct stenting after AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy or staged stenting after AngioJet thrombectomy plus catheter-directed thrombolysis with urokinase. METHODS: From June 2014 to February 2016, 91 DVT patients underwent 2 treatments for duplex-verified iliofemoral stenosis: direct stenting (n = 46; mean age 54.8 years; 32 men) or staged stenting (n = 45; mean age 56.5 years; 27 men). The degree of patency after thrombectomy or thrombolysis was evaluated using the Venous Registry Index (VRI), while the risk of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) was evaluated according to the Villalta scale. Patients were followed with periodic duplex ultrasound scans up to 1 year. RESULTS: The technical success rates were 100% in both groups; there was no 30-day mortality. Immediate (24-hour) clinical improvement was achieved in 42 (91%) of 46 direct group patients vs 33 (73%) of 45 staged group patients (p<0.001). A significant reduction (p<0.001) in the length of hospital stay was noted in the direct group (4.59±0.91) compared with that in the staged group (5.8±1.6). The stents used in the direct group were longer but with similar diameter compared with the staged group. The thrombolysis rates were 81.50%±5.76% in the direct group and 85.67%±3.84% in the staged group (p<0.001). The VRIs declined (improved) significantly in both groups (11.68±1.92 to 3.21±1.44 in the direct group and 12.17±2.29 to 2.36±1.19 in the staged group, both p<0.001). The Villalta scores were significantly better in the staged group (p<0.001). Recurrent DVT occurred in 2 patients in the direct group. The primary patency rates at 1 year were 93.5% in the direct group and 97.8% in the staged group (p=0.323). CONCLUSION: Both direct and staged stenting are effective treatment modalities for patients with acute proximal DVT. Compared with staged stenting, direct stenting provides similar treatment success and a significant reduction in the length of hospital stay; however, it has lower thrombolysis efficacy, and the risk of PTS at 1 year is greater with direct stenting.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Endovascular TherapySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207