Abstract 2084: Measurement of Health Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG): Better Physical Features with PCI vs. Quality of Life with CABG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: There remains a controversy as to which is a better treatment for multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD): percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Although the mortality and morbidities in those patients have been frequently evaluated, only a few studies reported on their health outcomes. The purpose of this study is to measure and compare the health outcomes in these patients in the Japanese population by using a disease-specific scale. Methods: A total of 354 patients were recruited from a university hospital in Tokyo. A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted by mailing self-administered questionnaires that measured health outcomes, and 331 patients (93.5%) responded. The selected disease-specific scale was the Japanese version of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-J). The score of each domain in the SAQ-J was set between 0 and 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome. Analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. Results: Non-PCI and non-CABG responders and those with incomplete responses were eliminated from the study, and data from 131 patients (PCI = 55, CABG = 76) were analyzed. The mean ages for PCI and CABG were 67.9 ± 9.5 and 69.6 ± 9.7 (mean ± SD), and the number of males was 46 (83.6%) and 68 (89.5%), respectively. The average interval between the procedure and the survey was 6.5 ± 8.0 and 7.6 ± 7.4 years, respectively. The number of 3-vessel CAD patients in PCI and CABG groups were 20 (36.4%) and 58 (76.3%)(P < 0.001). In terms of health outcomes after PCI and CABG, the PCI group had a significantly better score than the CABG group under the physical limitation domain of the SAQ-J (79.2 ± 19.7 vs. 71.5 ± 22.0; P = 0.005). On the other hand, the CABG group had a significantly better score in the quality of life (QOL) domain (70.9 ± 23.0 vs. 79.4 ± 18.1; P = 0.025). There was no significant difference between PCI and CABG in terms of anginal stability, anginal frequency, and treatment satisfaction. Conclusions: This is the first study to compare the health outcomes with PCI and CABG by using a disease specific scale in Japanese patients. The patients with CABG had a better QOL outcome than those with PCI. On the other hand, they were more likely to have physical limitations than the PCI group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".