Borderline coronary lesions may lead to serious coronary events--long-term outcome in 65 conservatively treated patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The choice of optimal therapy in a patient with borderline coronary lesion is difficult. The long-term outcome of conservatively treated patients has not yet been well defined. AIM: To analyse long-term outcome in patients with a borderline lesion in a single coronary artery who were selected for conservative treatment. METHODS: The study group consisted of 65 patients (mean age 59.4+/-7.4 years, 48 males) with (1) stable angina (CCS class I/II), (2) isolated single borderline coronary lesion (40-70% stenosis demonstrated by quantitative coronary angiography) and (3) no demonstrable ischaemia during non-invasive tests. Patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction <50% or acute coronary syndrome within 6 months preceding the study were not included. All patients were prescribed statins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and aspirin. Follow-up end-points included cardiac death, new myocardial infarction (MI) with or without ST segment elevation and revascularisation of the target coronary artery. RESULTS: The follow-up duration was 18.4+/-8.5 months (range 12-33, median 18 months). Forty nine (75%) patients remained free from angina during daily activity. Coronary events occurred in 16 (25%) patients, including three (5%) serious complications -- sudden death, new MI with ST elevation and new MI without ST elevation. The remaining 13 (20%) patients underwent percutaneous revascularisation of the target coronary artery. Coronary angiography was repeated in 16 (25%) patients. When the patients were divided into two groups according to the follow-up results (with or without coronary event), no differences in the clinical characteristics, lesion localisation and length or degree of stenosis were noted. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Conservatively treated patients with stable angina and borderline coronary stenosis have a high rate of coronary events, especially revascularisation, during a long-term follow-up. (2) Clinical parameters and quantitative coronary angiography do not identify those patients with borderline coronary lesions who are at increased risk of future coronary events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".