MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2930248139 · doi:10.1002/ccd.28166

Short‐ and long‐term results with a percutaneous treatment in critical hand ischaemia

2019· article· en· W2930248139 on OpenAlex
Zoltán Ruzsa, Balázs Berta, Júlia Tóth, Balázs Nemes, András Katona, Arthúr Hüttl, Imre Ungi, Olivier F. Bertrand, Béla Merkely

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGangreneSurgeryAngioplastyPercutaneousThrombolysisRevascularizationAmputationClaudicationIschemiaAdverse effectForearmVascular diseaseInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionArterial disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.279 · 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