Endovascular Aortic Balloon control versus open Aortic cross Clamp in open ruptured abdominal Aortic aneurysm repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine 30-day mortality of endovascular aortic balloon control compared with open aortic cross clamp in open surgical repair (OSR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs). METHODS: A retrospective cohort review was performed of all adult patients who underwent OSR of an infrarenal rAAA between 2001 and 2018 at a single tertiary care center. A total of 174 patients were identified, of which 21 patients received endovascular aortic balloon control and 137 patients received an open aortic cross clamp. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Two-variable multivariate logistic regression was adjusted for preoperative blood pressure and age. RESULTS: Endovascular aortic balloon control was nonsignificantly associated with lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 2.38), P = 0.63), and when placed under local anesthesia showed a trend toward improved mortality (adjusted OR = 0.34 (95%CI 0.06 to 1.77), P = 0.19). Balloon placement under general anesthesia was nonsignificantly associated with worse mortality (adjusted OR = 2.50 (95%CI 0.35 to 9.13), P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in mortality with the use of endovascular aortic balloon control in rAAA patients undergoing OSR, and it may be considered as an alternative approach to open aortic cross clamp in properly selected 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".