MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Angiographic and Clinical Outcomes after Implantation of Drug Eluting Stents in Bifurcation Lesions with Crush or Kissing Stent Technique

2013· article· en· W1580771090 on OpenAlexaff
Asim N. Cheema, Sanjit S. Jolly, Jason M Burstein, Waseem Sharieff, Atif Mohammad, Eunice Yeoh, G.B. John Mancini, Warren J. Cantor, Michael J.B. Kutryk, Bradley H. Strauss, Robert J. Chisholm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interventional Cardiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalHamilton General HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRestenosisMaceStentMyocardial infarctionCoronary artery diseaseDrug-eluting stentRevascularizationSurgeryCardiologyRadiologyThrombosisConventional PCIInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcome after bifurcation stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) for obstructive coronary artery disease is poorly understood. In this study, we report 6-9-month angiographic follow-up and long-term clinical outcomes after implantation of drug-eluting stents by crush and kissing stent technique for coronary bifurcation lesions. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing bifurcation stenting with DES by crush or kissing stent technique were enrolled in a prospective registry. Angiographic follow-up was obtained at 6-9 months and clinical follow-up completed for a median of 38 months. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients participated in the study. Bifurcation stenting by crush technique was performed in 73 (85%) and by kissing stent in 13 (15%) patients. Stenting of left main bifurcation was applied in 24 (28%) patients. Angiographic follow-up was completed in 75 (87%) patients and showed restenosis in the main for 8 (11%) and side branch for 20 (27%) patients. Clinical follow-up was available for a median duration of 38 months. During follow-up, 2 (2%) patients died, 4 (5%) experienced myocardial infarction (MI), and 11 (13%) underwent target vessel revascularization (TVR) with an overall major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate of 16%. In left main cohort, angiographic restenosis occurred in 9 (37%) patients, and 3 (12%) patients required TVR. There were no deaths or stent thrombosis. A comparison of crush and kissing stent technique showed significantly higher angiographic restenosis with crush (26% vs 13% in kissing stent patients, P = 0.046) and 95% of restenosis in crush group involved ostium of the side branch. There was no difference in clinical outcomes between the crush and kissing stent groups. Final kissing balloon dilatation (FKB) was successful in 65 (89%) patients in the crush group and associated with a significant reduction in MACE (8% in FKB successful vs 37% in FKB unsuccessful, P = 0.04) during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Bifurcation stenting with crush or kissing stent technique is safe and associated with a low rate of TLR and MACE on long-term follow-up. Crush stenting is associated with a significantly higher rate of side branch restenosis compared to kissing stent technique. FKB is associated with significant reduction in MACE during follow-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interventional CardiologySame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207