Impact of previous percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and/or stenting revascularization on outcomes after surgical revascularization: insights from the imagine study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine the impact of previous coronary artery revascularization by percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and/or stenting (PCI) on outcome after subsequent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS AND RESULTS: The ischaemia management with Accupril post-bypass Graft via Inhibition of the coNverting Enzyme (IMAGINE) trial, conducted between November 1999 and September 2004, tested whether early initiation of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor post-CABG, in stable patients with LVEF >or=40%, would reduce cardiovascular events. Of the 2489 patients included in the IMAGINE trial, undergoing their first operation, 430 had a history of PCI prior to surgery (PCI group), and 2059 were referred to surgery without previous PCI (non-PCI group). There was a significant increase in the primary IMAGINE endpoint in the PCI group, HR = 1.53 [1.17-1.98], P = 0.0016. Coronary revascularization, HR = 1.80 [1.13-2.87], P = 0.014, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, HR = 2.43 [1.52-3.89], P = 0.0002, were the two individual components that significantly increased in the PCI group, even when adjusted for baseline characteristics (age, sex, history of myocardial infarction or stroke, diabetes, treatment group, or off-pump surgery). CONCLUSION: Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >or=40% having a history of PCI prior to surgery had a worse outcome post-CABG than those with no prior PCI. Further studies are needed to investigate whether these results apply for drug eluting stents.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".