MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction

2021· review· en· W3134981943 on OpenAlexaff
Pietro Di Santo, Trevor Simard, George A. Wells, Richard G. Jung, F. Daniel Ramirez, Paul Boland, Jeffrey A. Marbach, Simon Parlow, Kwadwo Kyeremanteng, Doug Coyle, Dean Fergusson, Juan Russo, Aun‐Yeong Chong, Michael Froeschl, Derek So, Alexander Dick, Christopher Glover, Marino Labinaz, Benjamin Hibbert, Michel Le May

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionMeta-analysisStroke (engine)Internal medicineRelative riskRandomized controlled trialMEDLINESystematic reviewCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Transradial access (TRA) has emerged as the preferred vascular access site for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate 30-day all-cause mortality comparing TRA with transfemoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies published from inception until January 7, 2020, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection. Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for abstracting data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, major bleeding, stroke, and access site complications. Results: A total of 14 studies representing 11 707 patients (5802 patients with TRA; 5905 patients with transfemoral access) were included in this systematic review. All-cause mortality (N=8 studies) was significantly reduced in the TRA group with an overall risk ratio (RR) of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56–0.92) in the pooled analysis. Major bleeding (N=12 studies; RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.45–0.80]) and access site complications (N=9 studies; RR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.30–0.53]) were significantly higher in the transfemoral access group. There was no statistical difference in reinfarction (N=10 studies; RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.75–1.25]) or stroke (N=8 studies; RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.87–2.50]). Conclusions: TRA is associated with lower 30-day mortality, major bleeding, and access site complications when compared with transfemoral access in ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; Unique identifier: 127955.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.022
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicVascular Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207