Cause of death with bare metal and sirolimus-eluting stents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Although drug-eluting stents have assumed a dominant role in interventional cardiology, concern has been raised about the potential for long-term adverse outcomes, including death. The aim of the present study was to compare the incidence and cause of death between patients who received sirolimus-eluting or bare metal stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: An integrated analysis was performed on 1748 patients enrolled in four prospective double-blind trials that randomly assigned patients to receive either a sirolimus-eluting or a bare metal stent for treatment of a single de novo coronary stenosis. During a mean follow-up of 2.6+/-0.6 years, 64 patients (3.7%) died. Total mortality was 3.2% among 870 bare metal stent patients and 4.1% among 878 sirolimus-eluting stent patients (P=0.37); there was no difference in cardiac mortality (1.4 vs. 1.3%; P=0.55) or causes of death between these two groups. The predominant cause of death was non-cardiac. Cardiac death was most frequently assigned owing to unwitnessed death. Death due to acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and stent thrombosis occurred infrequently. CONCLUSION: At a mean follow-up of 2.6 years in percutaneous coronary intervention patients, the predominant cause of death was non-cardiac. There was no significant difference in either the frequency or the cause of death with implantation of either sirolimus-eluting or bare metal stents.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".