Short- and long- term health related quality-of-life and anginal status after randomisation to coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: results of the Arterial Revascularisation Therapy Study (ARTS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health related quality-of-life (HRQL) beyond one year of treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is yet unknown. The Arterial Revascularisation Therapy Study (ARTS) was designed to compare CABG and stenting in multivessel disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: HRQL was evaluated at baseline, at 1- month and at 6-, 12- and 36 months after revascularisation using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in patients randomised to stenting (n=483) versus CABG (n=492). Both stenting and CABG resulted in significant improvement of HRQL and anginal status. Although there was a trend for better HRQL after CABG up to one year, the disparity between the two procedures decreased long-term. Most of the difference between the two procedures was attributed to repeat interventions in the stent group; at three years, 19% of stent patients versus 13% of CABG patients (p<0.0001) had undergone a repeat intervention. On most of the SF-36 scores, there was no difference between diabetics and non-diabetics, with diabetic patients having a worse score only on general health and physical functioning at all time points (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Both stenting and CABG resulted in a significant improvement in HRQL especially up to one year, but CABG was associated with less angina at all time points. There was a trend for better HRQL after CABG, but this difference was mainly attributed to repeat revascularisation in the stent group. Based on these findings, patients should select for themselves whether or not they would prefer the improved HRQL benefits after CABG, or whether they would prefer more angina after PCI and avoid a major operation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".