Association of acute kidney injury and bleeding events with mortality after radial or femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX) trial, adults with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary intervention who were allocated to radial access had a lower risk of bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), and all-cause mortality, as compared with those allocated to femoral access. The mechanism of the mortality benefit of radial access remained unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used multistate and competing risk models to determine the effects of radial and femoral access on bleeding, AKI and all-cause mortality in the MATRIX trial and to disentangle the relationship between these different types of events. There were large relative risk reductions in mortality for radial compared with femoral access for the transition from AKI to death [hazard ratio (HR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.97] and for the pathway from coronary intervention to AKI to death (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.92). Conversely, there was little evidence for a difference between radial and femoral groups for the transition from bleeding to death (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.42-2.64) and the pathway from coronary intervention to bleeding to death (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.28-2.49). CONCLUSION: The prevention of AKI appeared predominantly responsible for the mortality benefit of radial as compared with femoral access in the MATRIX trial. There was little evidence for an equally important, independent role of bleeding.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".