Effect of bare metal stenting on angiographic and clinical outcomes in diabetic and nondiabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of nonacute occluded coronary arteries: A report from the total occlusion study of Canada (TOSCA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outcome after PTCA and coronary stenting of nonacute total coronary occlusions in the diabetic population is unknown. The main objective of the present report was to compare the angiographic and 1-year clinical outcomes in the diabetic and nondiabetic patients who were enrolled in the Total Occlusion Study of Canada (TOSCA), a prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of primary stenting versus PTCA alone in nonacute native coronary artery occlusions. Of the 410 patients enrolled, 68 (16.5%) were diabetics. At 6-month follow-up, stenting resulted in significant improvement in angiographic outcome compared to PTCA alone in both diabetic and nondiabetic populations. Angiographic restenosis was significantly reduced by stenting in the nondiabetic population (69.3% vs. 55.2%; P = 0.009). A reduction in restenosis of a similar magnitude was observed with stenting in the diabetic population (71.1% vs. 59.3%; P = NS). At 1-year clinical follow-up, composite adverse cardiac event rates were similar for both strategies regardless of diabetic status. Target vessel revascularization was reduced by stenting compared to PTCA in diabetics (20% vs. 31.6%) and nondiabetics (21.5% vs. 30%). A significant reduction for any vessel revascularization following stenting compared to PTCA was observed in the nondiabetic population (28.5% vs. 38.8%; P = 0.05) but not in the diabetic subgroup (36.7% vs. 42%; P = NS). In conclusion, stenting appeared to be superior to PTCA alone, resulting in similar magnitude of reduction in angiographic restenosis and target vessel revascularization rates in diabetics and nondiabetics. Restenosis rates in all groups remain high. This analysis forms an important background for future studies that are needed to examine the effect of stenting with drug-eluting stents in diabetics as well as nondiabetics with nonacute coronary occlusions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".