P.142 Safety and Efficacy of Vascular Closure Devices in Interventional Radiological Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vascular closure devices (VCDs) are routinely used in both neurovascular and vascular interventional procedures. The purpose of our study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the VCDs for diagnostic and therapeutic neurovascular and vascular procedures. Methods: The study was approved by the University of Manitoba research ethics board. A retrospective review was conducted of the database between January 2017 and December 2019. The data was collected from the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) and collected in an excel spreadsheet. Patient demographics and clinical information was collected. Descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests were performed using STATA 13 software. A p<0.05 was considered significant. Results: VCD was used in a total of 2072 patients. VCDs were successfully deployed in 94% with 6% failure. Immediate perioperative complications were seen in 6.2% patients. The complication rates were significantly (p=0.025) associated with the type of procedure. Complications were seen significantly (p=0.044) higher in outpatients compared to inpatients and those from emergency room. Conclusions: VCDs were successfully deployed in 96VCDs were successfully deployed in 94% of the patient with 6% perioperative complications. Most of the complications were minor and complications were more commonly associated with outpatients procedures and with diagnostic vascular procedures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".