Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Compared With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Proximal Left Anterior Descending Artery Treatment in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: Analysis From the ACUITY Trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and proximal left anterior descending (pLAD) coronary artery lesions is not well defined. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of ACS patients with pLAD culprit lesions receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). METHODS: The ACUITY trial was a multicenter, prospective trial of patients with ACS treated with an early invasive strategy. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE; defined as death, myocardial infarction [MI], and repeat revascularization) and stroke were compared at 30 days and 1 year between PCI and CABG in patients with significant stenosis of the pLAD undergoing revascularization. Postprocedural major bleeding was evaluated at 30 days. RESULTS: Among patients with a significant pLAD stenosis (n = 842), a total of 562 (66.7%) underwent PCI and 280 (33.3%) underwent CABG. Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, diabetes, and TIMI risk score, were well matched between groups; however, patients undergoing PCI were more likely to have had previous CABG (21.9% vs 6.4%; P<.001). Death, MI, MACE, and stroke rates did not differ between groups at 1 year. PCI patients had lower bleeding rates (8.1% vs 52.4%; P<.001) and blood product transfusion at 30 days (4.5% vs 41.3%; P<.001), but higher rates of unplanned revascularization at 1 year (12.7% vs 5.2%; P<.01). These results were consistent in patients with single vs multivessel disease and in diabetics vs non-diabetics. CONCLUSIONS: Among ACS patients with pLAD culprit lesions, an initial revascularization strategy of PCI compared with CABG yields similar 1-year death, MI, and MACE rates, although unplanned revascularization is more common after PCI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".