Revascularization Strategies for Calcified Lesions in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes (From the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage StrategY [ACUITY] Trial).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revascularization of calcified coronary lesions has been shown to be associated with suboptimal outcomes. The optimal revascularization strategy for calcified lesions in patients presenting with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) has yet to be defined. METHODS: Outcomes in patients presenting with NSTEACS and moderately or severely calcified target lesions in native coronary vessels, as assessed by an independent angiographic core lab, were examined according to revascularization strategy (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] vs coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] surgery) from the large-scale, prospective ACUITY trial. Propensity-adjusted multivariable analysis was used to identify the independent predictors of events at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 1315 NSTEACS patients with moderately and severely calcified lesions in whom revascularization was performed, a total of 334 (25%) and 981 (75%) underwent CABG and PCI, respectively. CABG patients had more severe baseline comorbidities and coronary artery disease. By propensity-adjusted multivariable analysis, the CABG group had higher 30-day rates of reinfarction, composite death or reinfarction, major bleeding, and thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale study of patients presenting for NSTEACS, 30-day adverse events were more frequent after revascularization of calcified coronary lesions with CABG rather than PCI. Further studies are warranted to evaluate means of improving early safety outcomes in this high-risk patient group with complex coronary disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".