Association Between the Access Site for Coronary Angiography and Catheter-induced Coronary Artery Dissection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Catheter-induced coronary artery dissection (CICAD) is a rare complication of coronary angiography. The association between access site and CICAD remains unclear; however, transradial access (TRA) may be associated with a higher incidence of CICAD due to access vessel tortuosity and the mechanical disadvantage of catheters designed for the transfemoral access (TFA) approach. Methods: In this retrospective study, the reports of consecutive left heart catheterizations between April 2007, and December 2021 were reviewed for CICAD. Patients were excluded if the procedural report did not report an arterial access site. Identified CICAD cases were reviewed in detail. Results: < .01)-an association that was not present in the TRA-predominant era. In-hospital mortality in patients with CICAD was 8.5%. Conclusions: CICAD is a rare complication of coronary angiography. Over a 15-year period, we did not demonstrate an association between access site and an increased risk of CICAD. There is substantial mortality associated with CICAD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".