Survival of patients with well-developed collaterals undergoing CABG or medical treatment: An observational case-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The effects of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on mortality have not been evaluated in patients with well-developed coronary collaterals. We investigated functional capacity, presence of angina, the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction, survival and mortality in patients with well-developed coronary collaterals both undergoing and refusing CABG. METHODS: The study was designed as a retrospective observational case-controlled study. Seventy-eight patients undergoing coronary angiography were included in this study. They had critical occlusion in the proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) with Rentrop-3 collateral circulation towards LAD, and to proceed with CABG has been suggested. The patients were divided in two groups; first group proceeding with CABG (n=40) and the second, rejecting the surgery (medical treatment group; n=38). The rates of survival, the incidence of angina pectoris and acute myocardial infarction as well as the functional capacities were evaluated in all patients. Survival rates were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding the baseline characteristics of patients, the presence of angina pectoris, the severity of angina pectoris according to CCS, the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction or stroke, and the functional capacity according to NYHA (p>0.05). Death due to cardiovascular reasons was observed in eight patients of CABG group and in five patients of medical treatment group (p=0.710). The 5-year survival rate was observed to be 80% in CABG group while it was observed to be 84% in the medical treatment group (p=0.730). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference regarding the survival rates in patients with well-developed coronary collaterals proceeding with CABG or medical treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".