MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415547416 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccas.2025.105844

Novel Mother-in-Child Technique to Implant Coronary Sinus Reducer in a Challenging Anatomy

2025· article· en· W4415547416 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Benoît Veillette, Juan Hernando Del Portillo-Navarrete, Francesco Giannini, Can M. Nguyen, Jean‐Michel Paradis

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronary sinusImplantReduction (mathematics)CatheterFluoroscopySinus (botany)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A 73-year-old woman with a history of complete revascularization for coronary artery disease presented with refractory angina despite multiple antianginal treatments. CASE SUMMARY: Repeated coronary angiography revealed no significant obstructive lesions. Functional invasive coronary assessment confirmed coronary microvascular dysfunction. An A-Flux coronary sinus reducer (VahatiCor) was proposed. Given a very vertically oriented coronary sinus, device deployment was challenging. We then employed a novel mother-in-child technique using a 10 F Oscor Adelante Breezaway 120 degrees catheter (Oscor) to optimize support during A-Flux implantation. DISCUSSION: Coronary sinus reducers may provide a favorable hemodynamic response in patients with microvascular angina. The A-Flux device's design may facilitate navigation in complex anatomies, although inadequate support remains a potential limitation. The mother-in-child technique may help overcome this challenge. TAKE-HOME MESSAGES: Insufficient support during coronary sinus reduction procedures is a major challenge for interventionists. Using the mother-in-child technique with a 10 F Oscor Adelante Breezaway 120 degrees catheter may help address this issue in certain 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC Case ReportsSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207