Short‐ and long‐term results with a percutaneous treatment in critical hand ischaemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective registry was to determine the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and thrombolysis in the treatment of critical hand ischemia (CHI). METHODS: One-hundred one patients (aged 60.6 ± 15.3 years) were treated for CHI between 2012 and 2016 in three cardiovascular centers. Anatomically, the upper arm was divided into three segments (I-subclavian, II-brachial, and III-forearm). We examined the rates of technical and clinical success, major adverse events (MAEs), and vascular complications at 1 year and at long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (18.8%) were treated for acute CHI, and 82 (81.2%) for chronic CHI. Median follow-up was 36.9 (19.6-68.3) months. Clinical symptoms were isolated rest pain in 91 patients (90.1%) and digital ulcer or gangrene in 10 patients (9.9%). The technical and clinical success rate of intervention was 96.0% (97/101) and 84.2% (85/101) at 1 year. Angioplasty was performed in Segments I, II, and III in 28 (27.7%), in 29 (28.7%), and 44 (43.5%) patients. Stent implantation was necessary in 47 patients (46.8%). Vascular access site complications were found in 2.1% of the sample. After 1 year, MAEs occurred in 27 patients (26.9%), and the target lesion revascularization rate was 11.9%. In two patients (1.9%), thoracic sympatectomy was necessary, and two patients (1.9%) underwent minor finger amputations. CONCLUSIONS: Angioplasty of hand vessels for CHI is a feasible and safe procedure with acceptable rates of technical success and hand healing. MAEs are frequent because the rate of severe comorbidities is high.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".