Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stent Implantation Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Treatment of Left Main Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the basis of clinical trials comparing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) with medical therapy, current guideline recommend CABG as the treatment of choice for patients with asymptomatic ischemia, stable angina, or unstable angina/non-ST elevation myocardial infarction who have left main coronary artery disease. Percutaneous coronary intervention can be selectively performed in patients who are candidates for revascularization but who are ineligible for CABG. However, because of advances in periprocedural and postprocedural medical care in patients undergoing either CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting, new evaluation, and a review of current indications, may be required to determine the standard of care for patients with left main coronary artery disease. Current evidences indicate that stenting results in mortality and morbidity rates that compared favorably with those seen after CABG, suggesting that a current guideline (the Class III recommendation of percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery disease) may no longer be justified. Data from several extensive registries and a large clinical trial may have prompted many interventional cardiologists to select percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting as an alternative revascularization strategy for such patients. In addition, these data may inform future guidelines and support the need for well-designed, adequately powered, prospective, randomized trials comparing the 2 revascularization strategies. The cumulative evidence from ongoing and future clinical trials will change the current clinical practice of revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery disease, which was introduced several decades ago and which has continued to date without major revision.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".