Application of Fractional Flow Reserve in Borderline Lesion of Left Main Coronary Artery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To analyze and to compare the application of fractional flow reserve( FFR) and coronary angiography( CAG) on instructing the treatment of borderline lesion of left main coronary artery. Methods 187 patients with borderline lesions in left main coronary artery confirmed by the CAG were divided into four groups: CAG medicine treatment group,CAG intervention group,FFR medicine treatment group,FFR intervention group. CAG medicine treatment group was treated merely with optimal secondary prevention medicine for coronary artery disease,but no percutaneous coronary intervention( PCI). CAG intervention group accepted PCI according to the operator's experience,the patient's clinical symptoms and the related auxiliary examination. FFR medicine treatment group was treated with medicine therapy according to FFR value 0. 80. FFR intervention group was treated with PCI according to FFR value≤0. 80. All patients were given optimal secondary prevention medicine for coronary heart disease. Main adverse cardiac event( including cardiovascular death,non-fatal myocardial infarction,target vessel revascularization) and angina pectoris classification of Canadian Cardiovascular Society( CCS) were analyzed in the 12 months follow-up period. Results The 4 groups had no cardiovascular death and CCS Ⅳ grade angina pectoris attack. Compared with CAG-guided medicine treatment group and intervention group,non-fatal myocardial infarction,target vessel revascularization and CCS Ⅰ ~ Ⅲ grade angina pectoris decreased significantly in FFR-guided medicine treatment group and intervention group( P 0. 05). Conclusion FFR have a certain guiding significanc in the therapy of borderline lesion of left main coronary artery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".