Radial access versus femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients : A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This review was carried out to determine the best option between the radial and femoral access in percutaneous coronary intervention in older individuals. Studies considered were RCTs and observational studies which were published between Jan 2000 and December 2020, from which, studies comparing radial access with femoral access in elderly patients aged 65 years and older were selected. A comprehensive literature search was conducted utilizing electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The search strategy included keywords such as “percutaneous coronary intervention”, “radial access”, “femoral access”, and “elderly patients. The quality of the included studies was assessed using appropriate tools for RCTs (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool) and observational studies (e.g., Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). The risk of bias was evaluated across different domains, including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias. A total of 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. These studies consisted of 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 observational studies. The total sample size across all studies was 3,000 elderly patients. The analysis indicated that radial access was associated with a higher rate of procedural success compared to femoral access in the elderly population (p < 0.05). Furthermore, radial access showed a lower incidence of major bleeding events, access site complications. Some limitations of this systematic review include the heterogeneity among included studies, as well as the limited number of available studies specifically focusing on elderly patients.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".