PCI compared with medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to assess quality of results of elderly patients with coronary disease after medical or revascularisation therapy. Methods In this study, we enrolled 103 patients aged 75 years or older with chronic angina in which 47 patients were assigned coronary angiography and revascularisation and 56 patients with optimised medical therapy. The primary endpoint was quality of life after 6 months, as assessed by questionnaire and the presence of major adverse cardiac events (death, non fatal myocardial infarction, or hospital admission for acute coronary syndrome with or without the need for revascularisation). Results After 6 months follow up, angina severity decreased and measures of quality of life increased in both treatment groups( P 0.05 ); however, these improvements were significantly greater after revascularisation( P 0.01 ). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 30 ( 53.6% ) of patients in the medical group and 9 ( 19.1% ) in the invasive group ( P 0.01 ).Conclusions Patients aged 75 years or older with angina benefit more from revascularisation than from optimised medical therapy in terms of symptom relief and quality of life. Therefore, these patients should be offered invasive assessment despite their high risk profile followed by revascularisation if feasible.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".