Abstract 8423: Prevalence and Outcomes of Intermediate Saphenous Vein Graft Lesions: Findings from the Stenting of Saphenous Vein Grafts Randomized-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We sought to examine the prevalence and progression rate of intermediate SVG lesions in the Stenting Of Saphenous vein grafts (SOS) trial. Methods: The baseline and follow-up angiograms of the 80 patients participating in the SOS trial were analyzed to determine the prevalence of intermediate (30-60% angiographic diameter stenosis) SVG lesions and their progression rate. Results: At least one intermediate SVG lesion was present in 31 of 143 (22%) SVGs in 27 of 80 (34%) patients. Patients with intermediate SVG lesions were older and more likely to present with myocardial infarction. Most intermediate lesions were present in the vein grafts the required stents (20 grafts in 19 patients). During a median follow-up of 35 months, angiographic follow-up was available for 28 grafts in 25 patients. Progression (defined as percent diameter stenosis ≥70% but <100% at follow-up angiography) was seen in 11 of 28 SVGs (39%) in 11 of 25 patients (44%). The rate of progression of the intermediate lesion at 12, 24 and 36 months was 28% and 47% and 84%, respectively (Figure). Seven of 11 patients (64%) whose intermediate SVG lesion progressed presented with an acute coronary syndrome, and 8 (73%) underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention. Four of the 28 grafts with intermediate lesions at baseline were occluded at follow-up; all of those SVGs had received a stent as part of the SOS trial. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing SVG lesion stenting, intermediate SVG lesions are common, have high rates of progression, and frequently present as an acute coronary syndrome.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".