MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093099448 · doi:10.1002/ccd.29321

A novel <scp>fiber‐optic</scp> based 0.014″ pressure wire: Designs of the <scp>OptoWire</scp>™, development phases, and the <scp>O<sub>2</sub> first‐in‐man</scp> results

2020· article· en· W3093099448 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paola Ulacia Flores, Goran Rimac, Sébastien Lalancette, Claude Belleville, Rosaire Mongrain, Sylvain Planté, Zoltan Rusza, Hitoshi Matsuo, Olivier F. Bertrand

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health CenterMcGill UniversityMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiomedical engineeringOptical fiberFiberPressure measurementCardiologySurgeryComposite materialMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives To review the technical limitations of available pressure‐wires, present the design evolution of a nitinol fiber‐optic pressure wire and to summarize the First‐in‐Man (FIM) O2 pilot study results. Background Despite increasing use of physiology assessment of coronary lesions, several technical limitations persist. We present technical details, design evolution and early clinical results with a novel 0.014” nitinol fiber‐optic based pressure‐wire. Methods and Results The 0.014’ OptoWire™ (Opsens Medical, Quebec, Canada) was designed to combine improved handling properties compared to standard pressure‐wires and to offer extremely reliable pressure recording and transmission due to fiber‐optic properties compared to piezo‐electric sensors and electrical wires. In vitro assessment showed that OptoWire™ steerability, pushability and torquability properties were closer to regular PCI wires than standard electrical pressure wires. In the First‐in‐Man O2 study, 60 patients were recruited at 2 centers in Canada. A total of 103 lesions were assessed with the OptoWire™ and OptoMonitor™, 75 lesions at baseline and 28 lesions post‐PCI (without disconnection). In all crossed lesions (n = 100, 97%), mean Pd/Pa and FFR could be adequately measured. In 11 cases assessed successively with OptoWire™ and Aegis™ (Abbott Vascular, USA) bland‐Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 0.002 ± 0.052 mmHg (p = .91) for Pd/Pa and 0.01 ± 0.06 for FFR calculation (p = .45). There was no device‐related complication. Upon these initial results, several design changes aimed to improve overall performance including torquability, stiffness, resistance to kink and pressure drift were completed. Conclusion The novel 0.014” fiber‐optic OptoWire™ provides superior wire handling with reduced risk of pressure drift allowing reliable pre‐ and post‐PCI physiology assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207