Radial versus femoral approach for same‐day inter‐facility transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of radial approach for coronary angiography, followed by same-day inter-facility transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not yet been evaluated. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the safety and feasibility of using the transradial as compared to the transfemoral approach in patients undergoing diagnostic angiogram with same-day transfer to a PCI facility. METHODS: Patients that underwent diagnostic coronary angiography between January 2011 and June 2017 in a referring facility, and were transferred for same-day PCI were included. Patients' demographics, as well as procedural data and in-hospital outcome, were collected. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-two participants were included. Of these, 36 (10.2%) patients received transradial access. Patients in the transradial group were older (68 ± 10 vs 62 ± 12 years, P = 0.007), and received a significantly higher total dose of heparin including both, diagnostic and PCI procedures (5935 ± 1865 vs 10029 ± 2771 units, P < 0.001). None of the transradial patients experienced bleeding or access-related complications. In the transfemoral group, 9 (3%) vascular-access complications were recorded. Contrast volume was lower for transradial patients (177 ± 47 vs 216 ± 75 mL, P < 0.001). A higher proportion of outpatients were discharged from the PCI-center the same day after transradial procedures (53% vs 1.3%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Transradial access for inter-facility transfer for PCI after diagnostic angiogram appears safe and feasible, without increasing the risk for ischemic hand complications. Transradial access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular access-site complications, and with a higher likelihood for a same-day discharge home in outpatients.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".