Outcome of Successful Versus Unsuccessful Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chronic Total Occlusions in One Year Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic total occlusions (CTO) comprises already one-third of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). There is controversy in PCI results considering short-term and long-term outcomes. We aim to compare efficacy and outcome of successful versus unsuccessful PCI in CTO in 1 year follow-up. METHODS: In this retrospective study we choose 330 consecutive patients undergone PCI on a CTO of a native coronary artery (163 successful and 167 unsuccessful) in Madani Heart Hospital, Tabriz, Iran. Patients were followed for a mean period of about 15 ± 3 months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in hospital and in follow-up were recorded comprising death, acute myocardial infarction, and need for repeat revascularization. RESULTS: Patients with unsuccessful PCI compared to successful PCI were mainly male (87.4% vs. 77.3%; P < 0.02), had a higher incidence of diabetes mellitus (31.1% vs. 20.9%; P < 0.04) and hypertension (53.3% vs. 42.3%; P < 0.04). Most patients in successful group had single vessel disease (63.4% vs. 46.7%; P < 0.001) and less three-vessel disease (11.8% vs. 22.8%) compared to unsuccessful group. In-hospital MACE was insignificantly higher in unsuccessful PCI (17.4% vs. 11%). Unsuccessful PCI was significantly associated with higher rate of 12 months MACE (43.7% vs. 30.1%, P = 0.01), especially revascularization (41.3% vs. 25.2%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Although in hospital outcome was the same between groups, patients with successful PCI of CTO had a better one year follow-up outcome than unsuccessful PCI. However mortality rate was the same and main complications were due to revascularization.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".