Frequency, Predictors, and Consequences of Crossing Over to Revascularization Within 12 Months of Randomization to Optimal Medical Therapy in the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial, some patients with stable ischemic heart disease randomized to optimal medical therapy (OMT) crossed over to early revascularization. The predictors and outcomes of patients who crossed over from OMT to revascularization are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared characteristics of OMT patients who did and did not undergo revascularization within 12 months and created a Cox regression model to identify predictors of early revascularization. Patients' health status was measured with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire. To quantify the potential consequences of initiating OMT without percutaneous coronary intervention, we compared the outcomes of crossover patients with a matched cohort randomized to immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Among 1148 patients randomized to OMT, 185 (16.1%) underwent early revascularization. Patient characteristics independently associated with early revascularization were worse baseline Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores and healthcare system. Among 156 OMT patients undergoing early revascularization matched to 156 patients randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention, rates of mortality (hazard ratio=0.51 [0.13-2.1]) and nonfatal myocardial infarction (hazard ratio=1.9 [0.75-4.6]) were similar, as were 1-year Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores. OMT patients, however, experienced worse health status over the initial year of treatment and more unstable angina admissions (hazard ratio=2.8 [1.1-7.5]). CONCLUSION: Among COURAGE patients assigned to OMT alone, patients' angina, dissatisfaction with their current treatment, and, to a lesser extent, their health system were associated with early revascularization. Because early crossover was not associated with an increase in irreversible ischemic events or impaired 12-month health status, these findings support an initial trial of OMT in stable ischemic heart disease with close follow-up of the most symptomatic patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00007657.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".