Stent implantation in variant angina refractory to medical treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vasospastic angina usually responds well to medical treatment. HYPOTHESIS: The present study describes our experience in patients who received a coronary stent because of recurrent variant angina refractory to medical treatment and evaluates stent implantation as an alternative treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March 1998 and February 2005, recurrent variant angina was diagnosed in 22 patients admitted to our coronary care unit. Of these, five patients (22.7%), were refractory to pharmacologic treatment. Coronary angiography and coronary stents were indicated. Clinical follow-up was 29 +/- 6 months. RESULTS: Stenting was performed during diagnostic coronary angiography in two patients. In the other three patients, the stent was implanted 24-48 h later. We observed coronary spasm recurrences proximal or distal to the stent in four patients-two during the stent implantation procedure and the other two in the coronary care unit within 48 h post angioplasty. Three patients where treated with additional stenting and the fourth patient improved with pharmacologic treatment. During follow-up three patients remained asymptomatic. The fourth patient had diffuse in-stent restenosis in the third month, and the fifth patient showed a de novo lesion in the treated segment 2 years later. CONCLUSIONS: Stent implantation in patients with recurrent variant angina refractory to medical treatment may be an alternative treatment in carefully selected, clinically unstable patients. Spasm recurrences may occur in other segments of the treated artery, probably due to the diffuse nature of the disease. Immediate and continued surveillance is recommended because of the risk of adverse clinical events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".