Clinical Outcomes of Treatment by Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Undergoing Index Revascularization in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention using contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with chronic kidney disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: A population-based study was performed using the Cardiac Care Network, a provincial registry of all patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in Ontario, to evaluate patients treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using DES or CABG between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2011. Chronic kidney disease was defined as creatinine clearance <60 mL/min. A total of 1786 propensity-matched patients from 4006 patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing index revascularization for multivessel disease with either DES or isolated CABG (n=893 each group) were analyzed. Baseline and procedural characteristics between percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG groups were well-balanced, including urgent revascularization priority, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular function, and 3-vessel disease. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year Kaplan-Meier survival analyses in propensity-matched patients favored CABG (93.2% versus 89.3%; 86.6% versus 80.3%; 80.8% versus 71.5%, respectively; P<0.001). The CABG cohort had greater 1-, 2-, and 3-year freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (89.4% versus 71.2%; 81.9% versus 60.5%; 75.2% versus 51.8%, respectively; P<0.001). Cox regression analysis identified DES use to be associated with greater hazard for late mortality (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.90) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (2.62; 2.28-3.01; all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large provincial registry, CABG was associated with improved early and late clinical outcomes when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention using DES in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing index revascularization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".