Major geographical variations in elective coronary revascularization by stents or surgery in England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) can be achieved through percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) depending on the anatomical pattern of CAD, comorbidities and patient preference. Recent studies in the USA, Canada and Australia show marked local variation in the PCI/CABG ratio that is unexplained by patient-related factors. This current study assesses the geographical variation in elective coronary revascularization interventions across England and discusses its appropriateness. METHODS: The rates and actual procedure numbers of total CABG, total PCIs and elective PCIs were collated for each of 151 primary care trusts (PCTs). The 'elective PCI/total CABG ratio' was taken as an indicator of elective coronary revascularization practices. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for PCTs was taken as a marker of deprivation. RESULTS: In 2010/2011, the degree of variation in elective PCI/total CABG ratios across 151 PCTs in England was >13-fold (min = 0.36, max = 4.74, median = 1.19, interquartile range = 0.98, 1.73). The ratio was not correlated to the IMD 2010 rank of the PCTs (Spearman's ρ = 0.08, P = 0.36) and was not explained by the volume of interventions performed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear evidence-based guidelines for intervention, marked geographical variation in elective coronary revascularization practices also exists in England. This variation is unexplained by procedure volume or deprivation, suggesting the contribution of unwarranted influences which may include practitioner preference. To reduce this level of unwarranted variation, we suggest that all interventions should be underpinned by internationally recognized guidelines or approved by a multidisciplinary team approach (The Heart Team).
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 | 0.008 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".