MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154617511 · doi:10.1177/107424840501000104

Long-Term Benefits and Limitations of Combined Antianginal Drug Therapy in Elderly Patients with Symptomatic Chronic Coronary Artery Disease

2005· article· en· W2154617511 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Piero O. Bonetti, Christoph Kaiser, Michael J. Zellweger, Leticia Grize, Paul Erné, Ronald A. Schoenenberger, Matthias Pfisterer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart rate and cardiovascular health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyInternal medicineDrugDiseasePharmacotherapyIntensive care medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic angina is a common and disabling disorder in the elderly. Combined antianginal drug treatment represents the mainstay of therapy in this population. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the effect of this strategy on long-term outcome in the elderly. METHODS: To assess the long-term effect of combined antianginal drug therapy in elderly individuals, we performed a long-term follow-up analysis of all 148 patients of the Trial of Invasive versus Medical therapy in Elderly (TIME) patients with chronic symptomatic coronary-artery disease assigned to an optimized medical therapy strategy. Angina severity, measures of quality of life (QOL), and survival were assessed after a median of 3.7 (0.1-6.9) years. RESULTS: At baseline, patients were 79.8 +/- 3.5 years old with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class angina 3.0 +/- 0.7 despite the use of 2.4 +/- 0.6 antianginal drugs. Although antianginal drugs were increased to 2.8 +/- 0.9 (P < .01), 63 (43%) patients needed revascularization for refractory symptoms during the first year of observation (REVASC). At baseline, REVASC patients had more frequently CCS class 4 angina (37% vs 20%, P < 0.05) but reported less prior heart failure (5% vs 20%, P < 0.01), fewer prior cerebral events (3% vs 13%, P < .05) and a lower rate of two or more comorbidities (10% vs 33%, P < .01) than patients on continued drug therapy (DRUG). At long-term follow-up, angina severity was still higher in DRUG compared to REVASC patients (CCS class, 1.8 +/- 1.6 vs 1.0 +/- 1.4, P < .05) despite more antianginal drugs (2.1 +/- 1.1 vs 1.5 +/- 1.0, P < .01), whereas measures of QOL had improved similarly in both groups. In addition, long-term mortality was significantly higher in DRUG than in REVASC patients (38% vs 13%, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Combined antianginal drug therapy successfully relieved symptoms in most elderly patients with chronic angina but failed to do so in 43%. Patients who needed revascularization for refractory symptoms reported less angina, despite lower drug use during long-term follow-up and had a better long-term survival. Thus, the widely used strategy to increase antianginal drug therapy in elderly patients instead of evaluating them for revascularization should be reconsidered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicHeart rate and cardiovascular healthFrench-language works237,207