MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806994616 · doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.03.038

Combined Transradial and Transpedal Approach for Femoral Artery Interventions

2018· article· en· W2806994616 on OpenAlexaff
Zoltán Ruzsa, Róbert Bellavics, Balázs Nemes, Artúr Hüttl, András Nyerges, Péter Sótonyi, Olivier F. Bertrand, Kálmán Hüttl, Béla Merkely

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFemoral arterySurgeryCumulative incidenceRadial arteryRevascularizationStenosisAdverse effectRadiologyArteryCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the acute success and complication rates of combined transradial and transpedal access for femoral artery intervention. Improved equipment and techniques have resulted in transition from transfemoral to transradial access for intervention of superficial femoral artery. Between 2014 and 2016, clinical and angiographic data from 145 consecutive patients with symptomatic superficial femoral stenosis, treated via primary radial access using the 6-F SheathLess Eaucath PV guiding catheter were evaluated in a pilot study. Secondary access was achieved through the pedal or popliteal artery. The primary endpoints were major adverse events, target lesion revascularization, and rates of major and minor access-site complications. Secondary endpoints included angiographic outcome, procedural factors, crossover rate to femoral access site, and duration of hospitalization. Technical success was achieved in 138 patients (95.2%). Combined radial and pedal access was obtained in 22 patients (15.1%). The crossover rate to a femoral access site was 2%. Stent implantation was necessary in 23.4% of patients. Chronic total occlusion recanalization was performed in 63 patients, with a 90.4% technical success rate. The mean contrast consumption, radiation dose, and procedure time were 112.9 ml (101.8 to 123.9 ml), 21.84 Gy/cm2 (9.95 to 33.72 Gy/cm2), and 34.9 min (31.02 to 38.77 min), respectively. The cumulative rate of access-site complications was 4.8% (0% major, 4.8% minor). The cumulative incidence rates of major adverse events at 3 and 12 months follow-up was 8.3% and 19.2%. The cumulative incidence rates of death at 3- and 12-month follow-up were 2.8% and 5.6%. Femoral artery intervention can be safely and effectively performed using radial and pedal access with acceptable morbidity and a high technical success rate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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