Direct transpedal pressure measurement during transpedal below‐the‐knee interventions in critical limb ischemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the distal pressure measurement during transpedal below-the-knee interventions in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and to assess the hemodynamic response after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. METHODS: The clinical and angiographic data of 137 consecutive patients treated via transpedal access in CLTI (Rutherford 4-6) were evaluated. Distal pedal pressure (PP) at the end of the pedal sheath was measured and the pedal-to-aortic pressure index (PAPI) was also calculated before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Good angiographic results was achieved in 131 patients (95.6%) in the femoro-popliteal and at least in one below-the-knee artery. Significant differences were found in PP and PAPI between before- and after-intervention values (103.2 ± 41.6 mmHg vs. 138.2 ± 37.8 mmHg and 0.74 ± 0.29 vs. 1.03 ± 0.34), respectively. Post-procedural PP and PAPI were significantly higher in patients who underwent good and borderline/unsuccessful intervention 141.7 [135.8-147.6] versus 82.6 [33.8-131.5] mmHg and 1.05 [1-1.1] versus 0.53 [0.2-0.8], respectively. PP's are significantly different in various Rutherford classification groups. Among the studied parameters, postprocedural PAPI was found to have the best discriminatory power to predict 3-month amputation (c-statistic: 0.749, 95% CI: 0.546-0.952, p = .016, sensitivity: 57.1%, specificity: 92.3% using the cut-off criterion ≤0.58). Major adverse event was detected in 17 patients at 3 months follow up (12.4%), including 7 major amputations (5.1%). CONCLUSION: Transpedal pressure and pedal-to-aortic pressure index significantly increased during transpedal below-the-knee angioplasty and final pressure and index correlates significantly with limb salvage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".