Percutaneous coronary interventions and cardiovascular outcomes for patients with chronic total occlusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the benefits of a coronary chronic total occlusion CTO recanalization after adjusting for the case-mix and the propensity to undergo the CTO intervention in a population of patients with stable coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: The benefits of percutaneous recanalization of CTO are disputed. METHODS: In 1,602 patients with a least one CTO and treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we derived a propensity score to undergo a CTO recanalization by comparing the characteristics of patients who did (n = 346) and did not (n = 1,256) undergo a CTO PCI attempt. Among the patients who underwent a CTO PCI attempt, we identified the angiographic predictors of failure. The primary analysis was ultimately performed by looking at the association between the outcome of the CTO recanalization and the survival free of death and cardiovascular rehospitalizations. Sensitivity analyses were performed by adjusting for the propensity to undergo a CTO recanalization, for the anatomical predictors of failure, and for the extent of coronary artery revascularization achieved. RESULTS: A successful CTO recanalization was not significantly associated with survival free of death and cardiovascular rehospitalization (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.64-1.25). Even more conservative hazards ratio point estimates were obtained with the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Successful percutaneous CTO recanalization is not associated with survival free of death and cardiovascular hospitalizations in a contemporary population of patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".