Percutaneous removal of pulmonary artery emboli with Hydrolyser catheter in pigs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Hydrolyser catheter for percutaneous treatment of massive pulmonary embolism in pigs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve pigs, each weighing between 55 kg and 89 kg, were used. Radioopaque 9 cm x 0.8 cm and 4.5 cm x 0.8 cm clots, produced by mixing pig blood with iodinated contrast agent in vacutainers, were injected via the jugular vein until central pulmonary embolism (main and proximal lobar arteries) was obtained with significant systemic and pulmonary hemodynamic modifications. From a femoral approach, the 7-French Hydrolyser thrombectomy catheter was run over a 0.025-inch (0.64-mm) guide wire to remove the pulmonary emboli. Hemodynamic, gasometric and angiographic monitoring was performed before and after treatment. The procedure's safety and completeness of emboli removal was assessed by cardiopulmonary autopsy. RESULTS: Three of the 12 pigs died during embolization. Thrombectomy was therefore performed in 9, and central emboli could be obtained in 7 of the 9. The Hydrolyser could be manipulated only in central pulmonary arteries and could aspirate only central emboli in 5 of the 7 pigs that had them. Despite minimal angiographic improvement seen in these 5, there was no significant hemodynamic and gasometric improvement after treatment. The procedure induced an increase in free hemoglobin blood levels. Autopsies revealed an average of 2 endothelial injuries per pig (mainly adherent endocardial thrombi) in both nontreated (n = 3) and Hydrolyser-treated (n = 9) groups. CONCLUSION: The Hydrolyser thrombectomy catheter can be promptly positioned and easily steered in central pulmonary arteries. It can be used to partially remove central emboli, but not peripheral pulmonary emboli. Most of the injuries observed may not have been strictly related to Hydrolyser use. The pig might not be a suitable animal model for treatment of massive pulmonary embolism.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".