Clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease with vs. without a history of myocardial revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim was to describe outcomes among patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) with or without a history of myocardial revascularization in a large contemporary cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with stable CAD were selected from the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry. The cohort was divided into patients with ( n = 25 583) and without ( n = 13 133) a history of myocardial revascularization. Crude outcomes were described according to the use and type of revascularization: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The primary outcome was cardiovascular (CV) death. At baseline, the non-revascularized group was older and had more CV risk factors. At 36-month median follow-up, previous revascularization was associated with a lower risk of CV death [crude incidence rate (CIR): 6.82 vs. 9.08%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.80]; P < 0.01]. This association was seen for patients with a history of PCI (CIR 5.78 vs. 8.88%, HR 0.64 [0.58-0.71]; P ≤ 0.01), but not with CABG (HR 1.26 [1.14-1.49]; P < 0.01), and was consistent regardless of prior MI and the timing of prior revascularization. CONCLUSION: Among patients with stable CAD, a history of myocardial revascularization was associated with lower CV mortality, particularly when PCI was the mode of revascularization. Coronary artery disease patients managed non-invasively represent a high-risk group.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".