Abstract 19474: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With and Without Diabetes in the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Diabetes mellitus (DM), coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure commonly coexist. Hypothesis 1 of the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial enrolled 1212 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less and CAD amenable to CABG. Patients were randomised to CABG and optimal medical therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. Hypothesis: We assessed the hypothesis that patients with DM enrolled in the STICH trial would have greater benefit of CABG than patients without DM. Methods: We compared the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with and without DM randomized to CABG and OMT or OMT alone. Cox-proportional hazards analyses were used to assess treatment effect. Results: Diabetes was present in 40.3%. At baseline, patients with DM had more triple vessel CAD (66% v 57%, p<0.001), higher LVEF [median 29% (IQR:22,35) vs 27% (IQR:22,33), p=0.015] and smaller left ventricular end diastolic volume index [median 105 ml/m2 (IQR:85, 128) vs 117 ml/m2 (IQR:93, 146) (p<0.001)]. Among patients with DM, there was a higher proportion of females, higher BMI on average, worse renal function, and more hypertension. Patients with DM undergoing CABG spent longer on cardio-pulmonary bypass [median 97 (IQR:71,126) vs 87 (IQR:65, 115) minutes, p=0.029], and were more likely to develop perioperative AF (23% vs 11%, p<0.001) and worsening renal function (9% vs 4%, p=0.021). Patients with DM on OMT had similar outcomes as those on OMT without diabetes (Table 1). A statistically significant or near statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes with CABG compared to OMT was documented in patients without DM, but not in patients with DM. However, there was no significant interaction between DM and treatment group on formal statistical testing. Conclusions: Patients with and without DM enrolled in the STICH trial had similar outcomes at 5 years, and CABG did not exert greater benefit in patients with DM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".