Pericardial access via wire‐guided puncture without contrast: The feasibility and safety of a modified approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and safety of wire-guided pericardial access without contrast. METHODS: From January 2014 to February 2019, patients who received epicardial mapping and ablation of ventricular tachycardia in the Beijing Anzhen Hospital were entered into the current study. They were divided into contrast-guided access group or wire-guided access group according to the pericardial puncture technique used. The baseline variables, procedure parameters, complications were collected and compared. RESULTS: During the study period, a consecutive of 73 patients received epicardial access. The initial 32 patients received contrast-guided puncture with success achieved in 30 patients, the remaining 41 patients underwent wire-guided puncture with success achieved in 40 patients (30/32 and 40/41, P = .581). Fluoroscopy time (4.45 ± 0.52 and 4.38 ± 0.46 minutes, P = .891) and access time (5.14 ± 0.58 and 5.34 ± 0.50 minutes, P = .657) were comparable between the two groups. Inadvertent right ventricular puncture occurred more commonly in the contrast-guided group (5/32 and 1/41, P = .038). Though more pericardial effusions (2/32 and 1/41, P = .575), tamponade (2/32 and 1/41, P = .575), and surgical repair (1/32 and 0/41, P = .432) occurred in the contrast-guided group, they reached no statistical difference. CONCLUSION: Wire-guided pericardial puncture exhibits better safety and similar success rates to contrast-guided technique with a trend towards less complications.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".