MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982656652 · doi:10.25270/jic/19.00007

Small-Size vs Large-Size Burr for Rotational Atherectomy

2019· article· en· W2982656652 on OpenAlexaff
Yaniv Levi, Shahar Lavi, Amir Solomonica, Zeev Israeli, Rodrigo Bagur

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œJournal of invasive cardiology/˜The œjournal of invasive cardiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrain sizeMathematicsEnvironmental scienceStatisticsMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rotational atherectomy (RA) has been traditionally performed via the transfemoral approach, mostly utilizing large guide catheters (≥7 Fr), which can accommodate the passage of large burrs (≥1.75 mm). However, contemporary data show that using smaller sheath and catheter sizes reduces the risk of procedural access-site related complications. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of performing RA using smaller burrs and subsequently smaller-sized sheath catheters. METHODS: A total of 220 patients underwent RA procedures between January 2011 and July 2017. We compared 162 patients who underwent RA using a maximal burr size of 1.5 mm (small-burr group) with 58 patients who underwent RA using burrs >1.5 mm in diameter (large-burr group). Clinical, procedural, safety, and feasibility data were evaluated and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the two groups were quite similar other than a higher prevalence of smoking (21.0% vs 5.2%; P<.01) and a lower body weight (80.9 ± 17.5 kg vs 86.8 ± 17.2 kg; P=.03) in the small-burr group vs the large-burr group. The indications for the procedure for the small-burr group vs large-burr group were stable angina in 53% vs 62%, unstable angina in 16% vs 17%, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI) in 26% vs 17%, and ST-elevation MI in 3.7% vs 3.4%, respectively (P=NS for all). The target-vessel (TV) diameter was significantly larger in the large-burr group vs the small-burr group (3.5 ± 0.3 mm vs 3.2 ± 0.5 mm, respectively; P<.01). Importantly, a sheath size >6 Fr was used in 56.0% of the small-burr group vs 89.5% of the large-burr group (P<.01). Moreover, in 53% of the small-burr group, a guide catheter >6 Fr was used. Radial access was used in 33% of the small-burr group and 17% of the large-burr group (P=.03). Procedural success was achieved in 93% of the small-burr group and 100% of the large-burr group (P=.07). CONCLUSION: In the majority of cases, RA can be successfully performed using smaller-sized burrs while achieving a high procedural success rate. Notably, our study also highlights the overuse of large sheaths and catheters to deliver small burrs. These results further support the contemporary strategy of using 6 Fr guide catheters, thereby increasing the possibility of using the radial approach for more complex interventional procedures.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œJournal of invasive cardiology/˜The œjournal of invasive cardiologySame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207