Interventional therapy and bypass surgery in octogenarians with angina pectoris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in treating octogenarians with angina pectoris. Methods Consecutive octogenarians with stable and unstable angina admitted to Leipzig Heart Center from January, 1997 to December, 2 000 were analyzed retrospectively. All patients enrolled were treated with PCI or CABG. Endpoint: death, re-infarction and repeat revascularization in hospital. Results A total of 482 patients were divided into PCI group with 281 patients and CABG group with 201 patients. The incidences of diabetes, hypertension and previous infarction were not significantly different between two groups. More patients with previous PCI or CABG were recorded in PCI group (20.6% vs 8.0% ,P0.05;10.096 vs 2.0% ,P0.05). The rates of left main artery lesion and triple vessel disease were higher in CABG group (1.1 % vs 7.5% ,P0.05;17.4% vs 62.2% ,P0.05). Combined endpoints were not significantly different between two groups(9. 6% vs 7. 5% , P0. 05). The death rate was slightly higher in CABG group (3. 296 vs 7.5%) with some surgery complications. Conclusions There was no significant difference in the endpoint events in hospital between two groups. It is acceptable that octogenarian patients with angina can be treated with PCI or CABG.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".