Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Current Era Compared With 1985–1986
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although refinements have occurred in coronary angioplasty over the past decade, little is known about whether these changes have affected outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline features and in-hospital and 1-year outcomes of 1559 consecutive patients in the 1997-1998 Dynamic Registry who were having first coronary intervention were compared with 2431 patients in the 1985-1986 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Registry. Compared with patients in the 1985-1986 Registry, Dynamic Registry patients were older (mean age, 62 versus 58 years; P:<0.001) and more often female (32.1% versus 25.5%; P:<0.001). In the Dynamic Registry, procedures were more often performed for acute myocardial infarction (22.9% versus 9.9%; P:<0.001) and treated lesions were more severe (84.5% versus 82.5% diameter reduction; P:<0.001), thrombotic (22.1% versus 11.3%; P:<0.001) or calcified (29.5% versus 10.8%; P:<0.001). Stents were used in 70.5% of Dynamic Registry patients, whereas 1985-1986 patients received balloon angioplasty alone. Procedural success was higher in the Dynamic Registry (92.0% versus 81.8%; P:<0.001) and the rate of in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, and emergency coronary bypass surgery combined was lower (4.9% versus 7.9%; P:=0.001) than in the 1985-1986 Registry. The 1-year rate for CABG was lower in the Dynamic Registry (6.9% versus 12.6%; P:<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although Dynamic Registry patients had more unstable and complex coronary disease than those in the 1985-1986 Registry, their rate of procedural success was higher whereas rates of complications and subsequent CABG were lower. Results of percutaneous coronary intervention have improved substantially over the past decade.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".