The effect of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe left ventricular dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To assess the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe LV dysfunction and compared the outcome with patients receiving optimal medical therapy.Methods: 156 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe LV dysfunction(LVEF 35%) were evaluated.65 patients received PCI and 91 patients received optimal medical therapy.All patients were followed up in 30 d and 1 year.The main adverse events(MAE)(all cause death,ST segment elevated myocardial infarction,acute heart failure,gastrointestinal bleeding,new-onset renal failure,intracerebral bleeding),angina severity(CCS class),heart failure functional NYHA class,LVEF,LVEDD and survival rate of 1 year were observed.Results: The CCS classes of angina severity in 30d and 1 year follow-up in PCI group markedly decreased than those in medical therapy group(P 0.05).Although the NYHA class and LVEF all improved and the LVEDD decreased in two groups,but there were no significantly statistical difference between two groups(P0.05).The MAE rate of 30d in PCI group was greatly higher than that in medical group(13.8% vs.4.4%,P 0.05),the MAEs mainly were all cause death,STEMI and acute heart failure(P 0.05).The survival rates of 30d in PCI group was significantly lower than that in medical group(95.4% vs.98.9%,P 0.05),and the survival rates of 1 year was lower than that in medical group,but there was no significantly statistical difference between two groups(89.2% vs.93.4%,P 0.05).Conclusion: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe LV dysfunction,PCI alleviated the angina,but the short term MAE rate was higher and it could not improve the short and long term survival rate compared with medical therapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".