MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412735367 · doi:10.14740/cr2076

Effect of Hyperperfusion on Successful Collection of Arterial Blood Gas Specimens in Patients With Acute Heart Failure

2025· article· en· W4412735367 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mei Zhang, Yu Shi, Ji Min Qiao, Ying Zhou, Huan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failureArterial blood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study aimed to explore the effect of radial artery flow hyperperfusion on the successful collection of radial artery blood gas specimens in patients with acute heart failure. Methods: From February 2023 to December 2024, 548 patients with acute heart failure in the database of the emergency rescue room of our hospital were divided into two groups: non-hyperperfusion group and hyperperfusion group. In the hyperperfusion group, arterial blood gas was collected using the radial artery hyperinfusion method (improving radial artery perfusion by blocking arteries other than the radial artery in the forearm using a customized sphygmomanometer with a double-airbag hollow cuff). The primary endpoint was the success rate of one-time puncture and the success rate of total puncture. Secondary endpoints included puncture frequency of > 3 times, puncture time, pain, puncture site hematoma, puncture site bruise, and patients' satisfaction. Results: In total, 548 patients were included, including 325 in the non-hyperperfusion group and 223 in the hyperperfusion group. The hyperperfusion group exhibited a significantly higher success rate of one-time puncture (63.4% vs. 83.4%, P< 0.001) and success rate of total puncture (82.5% vs. 94.6%, P < 0.001) compared to the non-hyperperfusion group. Additionally, the hyperperfusion group experienced a significantly reduced number of patients with puncture frequency > 3 times (26.2% vs. 9.9%, P < 0.001) and puncture time (48.59 ± 7.83 s vs. 26.43 ± 6.44 s, P < 0.001). This approach also effectively decreased the risk of puncture site hematoma (2.2% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.045), arm puncture place bruise (5.5% vs. 0.4%, P<0.001), and pain (3.0 (3.0, 4.0) vs. 2.0 (1.0, 2.0), P <0.001) and improved patients' satisfaction after adopting the radial artery hyperinfusion method. Conclusions: Radial artery hyperperfusion improved the success rate of puncture for radial artery blood specimen collection in patients with acute heart failure, reduced puncture complications, and improved patients' satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207