Abstract 11: Comparison of Patient Reported Angina with Provider Assigned Canadian Cardiovascular Society Angina Class Before and After Revascularization
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification system for angina is a critical determinant of revascularization appropriateness. A major limitation of CCS is that it rates patients’ symptoms from the perspective of providers, rather than patients themselves. Accordingly, we sought to evaluate the correlation of physician-assigned CCS class with patient-reported Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), before and after revascularization. Methods: Using data from the FREEDOM trial, which randomized 1900 patients from over 160 international sites to either PCI or CABG, CCS was reported by physicians and the SAQ was completed by patients prior to randomization and 1 year later. SAQ angina frequency (SAQ AF) scores were considered to correspond to CCS class per the following: SAF AF: 100=CCS 0, 61-99=CCS I, 31-60=CCS II, 0-30=CCS III/IV. Agreement between physician- and patient-reported angina categories was compared using chi square tests. Results: Among 1640 patients who had CCS and SAQ data at both baseline and 1-year, the mean age was 63.1 years, 71% were male, and 83% had 3-vessel coronary disease. Before revascularization, physicians correctly reported the burden of angina in 25.5% of patients and overestimated the burden of angina in 62.1%. Among 1194 patients who reported monthly or no angina, 229 (19.2%) were classified by their physicians as having CCS III/IV. In contrast, at follow-up, 71.2% of patients had their angina correctly estimated by their physicians and only 0.6% among the 1568 patients with monthly/no angina were assigned CCS III/IV by their physicians. Among the 28.8% misclassified by CCS at 1 year, 20.8% had less angina than reported by physicians and 8.0% had more (Figure; p=0.01). Findings were similar when the analysis was repeated in patients who were treated with PCI or CABG. Conclusions: In a large cohort of patients with stable coronary disease undergoing revascularization, clinicians often overestimated the amount of angina patients were having prior to revascularization but were significantly more accurate at follow-up. Given that importance placed on CCS for enrollment in clinical trials, or assigning appropriateness of revascularization in clinical practice, using patient-reported symptom burden as a more unbiased measure should be considered.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».