Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients Previously Considered “Without Option”:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present study assesses clinical outcomes in patients from the Potential Angina Class Improvement From Intramyocardial Channels (PACIFIC) trial of percutaneous transmyocardial revascularization (PTMR) who had previously been considered "no-option," but who subsequently underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for continuing symptoms. BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced symptomatic coronary artery disease who are not candidates for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or PCI comprise an important group, for which no established treatment is currently available. These patients have been described as having "no option," and are currently targeted for various experimental therapies. One such proposed therapy, PTMR, was recently examined in the PACIFIC trial. A subgroup of patients in this trial subsequently underwent PCI, although to initially qualify for the study they had previously been considered as unsuitable for PCI and as having "no option." The therapeutic benefit of PCI for patients of this type is unknown. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on data obtained from all subjects of the PACIFIC study who underwent PCI within the 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Ten subjects originally randomized to PTMR and 11 subjects from the medical treatment group underwent PCI. Most had undergone at least one prior PCI and at least one CABG, and there was a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. Despite excellent immediate procedural success, PCI resulted in only modest, statistically nonsignificant increases in mean exercise duration, small improvements in angina status, and no significant improvements in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that PCI provides only marginal-if any-symptomatic benefit in these patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".