Chest Symptoms Following Coronary Stenting in the First 10 Weeks of Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most patients experience the benefits of PTCA and stent quickly, with reduction in symptoms and improvement in functional status, however many patients experience chest symptoms post-procedure. OBJECTIVE: To describe the pattern and characteristics of post-stent chest symptoms in cardiac rehabilitation participants. METHODS: A prospective descriptive study assessing the pattern and presence of chest symptoms in coronary artery stent recipients (N=129) four and ten weeks post-procedure. Patients were interviewed at cardiac rehabilitation or by the phone using a specifically developed questionnaire which incorporated the McGill Pain Questionnaire. RESULTS: Most participants were male, aged on average 60.5 years and received two stents, most often drug eluting. Post-stent chest symptoms were common, experienced by two thirds of patients (68%) at some time during the 10 weeks post-discharge. Chest symptoms were recurrent, with 33% having symptoms on both occasions and occurred more often in younger patients (p<.00). Patients described their symptoms as discomforting and used the descriptors dull, tight, sharp, pressing and flickering. Chest symptoms tended to be brief and/or intermittent (65%) lasting from a few seconds to a few minutes (63%). Most patients felt their symptoms were related to their stent (75%) and were unsure what to do. A small number (5%) interpreted their symptoms as ischaemic and presented to the hospital (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Post-stent chest symptoms are frequent and recurrent out to 10 weeks post-discharge. Although symptoms tended to be brief and intermittent, the location and quality of these symptoms may overlap with existing chest pain guidelines, making it difficult for patients to interpret. Cardiac rehabilitation staff are in an ideal position to support and inform stent recipients about appropriate responses to these symptoms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".