Resultados de Procedimientos Híbridos para tratar Enfermedad Arterial Periférica: experiencia de un centro a 5 años
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to present patients with peripheral vascular disease (PVD) who underwent hybrid procedures at our institution, the results of these interventions for a 5-year period and determine patency, mortality, failure, and amputation rates compared to the literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational, single center, retrospective, and cross-sectional study which analyzed data gathered from the vascular quality initiative from patients who had hybrid revascularization procedures from January 2010 to December 2015. RESULTS: 87 patients were identified: 51 (58%) male, 36 (41%) female, 9 (10%) had critical limb ischemia (CLI), and 78 (90%) claudication. We analyzed results of hybrid interventions in their variations. Technical success rate was 100%, patency at 2 years 88.5% (primary 65%, primary-assisted 18.3%, and secondary 4.5%) and 11.49% failure rate (lost patency < 1 year, conversion to open or/and amputation). Predictors of failure were: Female, previous chronic heart failure, longer length of stay, and previously transferred from another hospital. Amputation rate was 12.6% (10.3% major and 2.2% minor amputation), the only significant predictor was age (p = 0.035, odds ratio = 0.89) (0.806-99). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid procedures are effective to treat patients with either CLI or claudication. Our study had outcomes comparable to the literature, with similar patency, amputation, and complication rates. We conclude it is a safe and effective option for PVD with multi-level disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".