Is outpatient coronary angioplasty and stenting feasible and safe? Results of a retrospective analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of coronary angioplasty with or without stenting and with same day discharge in a population of outpatients or referred patients. This study also assessed the changing practice in the access route and the increasing use of stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this retrospective and descriptive study, the authors reviewed the files of ambulatory or referred patients hospitalized within seven days of a heart catheterization with coronary angiography between January 1997 and December 1999. Overall, 1856 patients were included, of which 546 (29.4%) had a coronary angioplasty. In the first six months, stents were used in 13.3% of outpatients and 23.5% of referred patients, while in the last six months 75.0% of outpatients and 73.0% of referred patients were stented. A total of 156 patients were triaged for a prolonged observation period of which 66 (12.1%) received some treatment (heparin, abciximab, coronary artery bypass graft or transfusion). Two patients (0.4%) had acute thrombosis. No patients experienced complications that could have been prevented by a one or two day routine observation period. While 47% of patients were accessed by the radial artery in the first six months, 77.2% of patients were accessed by the radial artery in the last six months. Significant access complications occurred in 11 patients (0.6%). CONCLUSION: Outpatient angioplasty is feasible and, according to the retrospective analysis of the authors' admittedly incomplete data, safe. The use of stents facilitates same-day discharge. Pre-, per- and postprocedural triage allows identification of high risk patients for a longer observation period with or without additional treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".