The Association of Angiographic Collaterals with Long‐Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Stable Angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of coronary collaterals in stable angina. BACKGROUND: Whether spontaneously visible coronary collaterals are associated with long-term clinical outcomes in stable angina remains unclear. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with stable angina referred for coronary angiography and followed them clinically for 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 1,134 consecutive patients were enrolled, and of these, 550 had at least single-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) and were included. Patients with collaterals had more congestive heart failure (16% vs. 9%, P = 0.023), peripheral vascular disease (22% vs. 15%, P = 0.044), and 2-vessel (36% vs. 26%) and 3-vessel (28% vs. 10%) CAD compared to those without collaterals (P < 0.001). Patients with collaterals were less likely to undergo percutaneous intervention at the time of the index angiogram (32% vs. 61%, P < 0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences in angina (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.50-1.10; P = 0.141), myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.46-3.21; P = 0.691), revascularization (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55-1.30; P = 0.431), death (HR 1.83, 95% CI 0.63-5.31; P = 0.269), or the combined end-point of death, MI, and revascularization (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61-1.24; P = 0.426) between patients with and without collaterals. When analyzed according to collateral grade, patients with Rentrop grade 1 had less angina (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.89; P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, there was no difference in adverse events between patients with or without collaterals. The presence of Rentrop grade 1 collaterals, however, was associated with significantly less angina.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".