Angina Severity, Depression, and Response to Percutaneous Revascularization in Patients With Chronic Total Occlusion of Coronary Arteries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to quantify depression rates in patients referred for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO), assess its relationship to baseline angina symptoms, and compare angina improvement after CTO-PCI between depressed and non-depressed patients. BACKGROUND: Depression is common among patients with chronic angina, and portends poor prognosis. CTOs are a common cause of angina. The relationships between angina, depression, and CTO intervention are unknown. METHODS: We collected baseline and 30-day post-PCI data on angina (Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ7]), dyspnea (Rose Dyspnea Scale [RDS]), and depression status (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2]) on 45 consecutive patients referred for CTO-PCI between October 2013 and October 2014. RESULTS: Depression (PHQ-2 score ≥3) was present in 18/45 patients (40%) at baseline. Baseline SAQ7 Summary and SAQ7 Angina Frequency scores for depressed patients were 35.4 (range, 28.4-42.4) and 54.4 (range, 43.0-65.8), compared with 67.3 (range, 57.5-77.1) and 77.8 (range, 68.5-87.1) for non-depressed patients (P<.001 and P=.01, respectively). Following CTO-PCI, the mean improvement in SAQ7 Summary and SAQ7 Angina Frequency scores was 48.5 (range, 35.4-61.5) and 32.8 (range, 21.0-44.5) for patients with depression, compared with 16.5 (range, 5.87-27.2) and 12.6 (range, 3.0-22.2) for patients without depression (P<.001 and P=.01, respectively). Following PCI, the presence of depression was reduced (72% relative reduction vs. baseline; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Depression identifies patients more limited by angina and more likely to respond to CTO-PCI compared with non-depressed patients. Depression screening may be indicated for patients with CTO, as 67% of CTO patients were not receiving treatment for depression.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".