Catheter Reprocessing for Coronary Angiography: It is Not Safe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention are frequently and increasingly performed worldwide. Although catheters for coronary angiography are considered as single-use devices, some people still question this decision. This study evaluated the structural characteristics and thermal stability of new and reprocessed catheters. METHODS: Five catheters (Judkins left) of the same brand and manufacturer were selected for each analysis. We evaluated: new catheters, catheters reprocessed once (first), twice (second), thrice (third), and seven times (seventh). The optical analyses of the proximal, middle and distal parts of the catheters were performed by magnifying glass. Besides, thermogravimetric analyses were done. RESULTS: After reprocessing, the crushing, color changes, folds, dents, deformations, and lumen narrowing were observed; the stainless-steel framework, the external tortuosity, the interlaced mesh of stainless-steel wires and loss of polymeric material were visualized. Thermogravimetric analysis showed lost of mass of the catheters. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the structural integrity and mass of catheters are lost with reprocessing. These findings may be caused by several steps of reprocessing; however, regardless of which step or steps were responsible, the presence of structural integrity loss leads to the recommendation of not reusing this type of device.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".