Expedited Removal of a Radial Hemostatic Compression Device Following Cardiac Catheterization Is Safe and Associated With Reduced Time to Discharge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radial access for cardiac catheterization has become increasingly adopted, owing much of its popularity to decreased bleeding complications compared with the femoral approach. Hemostatic compression devices (HCDs) for radial catheterization play a key role in this advantage, but the optimal duration of compression is unknown. A shorter duration of compression is encouraged by guidelines, but removing an HCD too quickly could result in serious bleeding. We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of expedited removal of a radial HCD after cardiac catheterization. METHODS: (Terumo Interventional Systems) which was removed after a prespecified amount of time in each of three sequential temporal cohorts: 2-h, 1-h, or 0.5-h. Each patient was monitored for development of bleeding or hematoma and for serious complications. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients participated in our study, with similar numbers in each group. There was a greater rate of minor bleeding in the 0.5-h (12%) and 1-h (19%) groups compared with the 2-h group (8%), but there were no serious complications (need for surgical consultation, transfusion, or unplanned admission) in any group. The average time to discharge was shorter in the 0.5-h and 1-h groups compared with the 2-h group. CONCLUSIONS: Deflating the radial HCD at 0.5 h is safe with no increase in the observed rate of major complications and is associated with reduced time to discharge after coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention using the radial arterial approach.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".