[Comparison of clinical status and long-term outcome of patients with angina pectoris and normal coronary vessels in coronary angiography or insignificantly narrowed coronary arteries].
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
UNLABELLED: Among patients investigated with coronary angiography because of effort chest pains, 8-30% are found to have insignificantly narrowed coronary arteries. In this group there are patients with angiographically normal coronary arteries and patients with hemodynamically insignificant atherosclerotic plaques. The aim of this study was to compare clinical status and long-term outcome of patients with effort angina whose epicardial coronary arteries were angiographically normal (Group 1) and patients with luminal diameter stenoses of maximum 30% (Group 2). Between III'91 and IV'97 we identified 230 patients who underwent coronary angiography in the Department of Coronary Artery Disease in Cracow. At the end of the follow-up the patients were asked to complete the self-report questionnaires which evaluated the course of the disease after discharge from the Department and present symptoms. On the basis of the medical records from the hospitalization in the Department and returned questionnaires data of 142 patients (Group 1: 89 patients, 46 men and 43 women, mean age 48.10 +/- 9.2 years; Group 2: 53 patients, 36 men and 17 women, mean age 52.51 +/- 9.6 years) were analyzed. Group 2 patients were older (p = 0.007), with higher prevalence of men (p = 0.05). The mean follow-up was 3.47 +/- 1.7 years for Group 1 and 2.85 +/- 1.7 years for group 2 (p = NS). Left ventricle contractility was normal in both groups. The occurrence of atherosclerosis risk factors was more frequent in Group 2 patients and didn't change significantly over the observation period. There were no deaths or new myocardial infarctions during the observation. Unstable angina occurred in 4 (2.8%) of patients. 33 patients (23.2%) reported hospital treatment for chest pain with mean frequency 0.13 +/- 0.3 hospitalizations/year in Group 1 and 0.09 +/- 0.17 in Group 2 (p = NS). Before coronary angiography this index was significantly higher -0.57 +/- 0.8 hospitalizations/year in group 1 and 0.51 +/- 0.7 in group 2 (p < 0.001 for both groups). Anginal symptoms improved significantly over the observation period. Before coronary angiography majority of patients (60.5% Group 1 patients and 58.3% of Group 2 patients) defined their angina as severe comparing to respectively 7.1% and 2.1% of patients at the end of follow-up (p < 0.05 for both groups). Only 8 (5.6%) of patients remained entirely asymptomatic at the end of the study. During the observation 7 (4.9%) of patients returned to work while 30 (21.1%) of patients retired for medical reasons out of which 25 (17.6%) were due to heart disease. During the follow-up there were no differences between the groups in the professional activity of patients. Group 2 patients were receiving more cardiac medications (mean 2.63 +/- 0.8 vs 2.18 +/- 0.9 at the discharge from the Department; p. = 0.05 and mean 2.52 +/- 0.9 vs 2.02 +/- 1.0 at the end of follow-up; p = 0.04). Group 2 patients were more frequently taking nitrates (86.3% vs 53.7% at the discharge from the Department; p < 0.001 and 77.1% vs 60.9% at the end of the study; p = 0.05) and diuretics. CONCLUSIONS: 1. During follow-up (mean 3.4 years) there were no differences between the groups in the presence of symptoms, frequency of hospitalizations and occurrence of acute coronary events. 2. In both groups severity of anginal symptoms and frequency of hospitalizations decreased significantly. 3. The persistence of cardiac symptoms might have been caused by the presence of atherosclerosis risk factors during the follow-up.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».