A comparison of the health status after percutaneous coronary intervention at a hospital with and without on-site cardiac surgical backup: a randomized trial in nonemergent patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized trials comparing the coronary artery disease-related health status outcomes (changes in symptom grade, physical functional capacity and health-related quality of life) after percutaneous coronary intervention at hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgical backup have not been reported earlier. METHODS: We randomly assigned 609 consecutive patients fulfilling pre-specified procedural low-risk criteria to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention at either a community hospital without or a regional hospital with on-site surgical backup. Five hundred and seventy-six patients completed the health status evaluation at baseline and at 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, 91.4% had symptoms, and the mean (standard deviation) Canadian Cardiovascular Society's classification was 2.5 (0.9). The procedural success rates and the changes in health status measures were similar at the two hospitals. Overall there was a substantial relief of symptoms with a reduction in Canadian Cardiovascular Society's classification of 1.9 (1.2), increase in exercise time [1.4 (1.9) min] and reduction in use of antianginal drugs [0.6 (0.9) less drugs] at follow-up compared with baseline (all P<0.001). Health-related quality of life was evaluated with the Short-Form 36 health survey. There were significant and similar improvements in nearly all multi-item and summary scores from baseline to follow-up at the two hospitals. The largest improvements were seen in items related to physical functioning [overall change in Physical Component Score from baseline to follow-up 6.9 (9.1) points, P<0.001] and lowest in the mental health domains [change in Mental Component Score 3.3 (10.7) points, P<0.001]. INTERPRETATION: This study shows that a substantial and comparable gain in coronary artery disease-related health status can be achieved at hospitals both with and without surgical backup.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".