Procedure indications and outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions in a tertiary care hospital.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical indications and one month outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (PCI) in a tertiary care centre. METHODS: We prospectively conducted a descriptive study on 259 symptomatic coronary artery disease patients, who underwent primary, rescue or elective PCI with stent deployment at the Tabba Heart Institute, from May 2005 to September 2006. The primary objective of the study was to identify--stable angina, unstable angina, Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), congestive heart failure (CHF) and cardiogenic shock) and thirty days outcome of PCI in terms of mortality, peri-procedural myocardial infarction, re-infarction and stent thrombosis. This was done according to the standard guidelines of Canadian Cardiovascular Society and New York Heart Association classification. The patients were followed for one month and complications were noted. RESULTS: The mean age of sample was 54.9 +/- 10.6 years. The indications were stable angina (32.4%), unstable angina (13.9%), NSTEMI (18.9%), STEMI (35.1%), CHF (5.4%) and cardiogenic shock (1.5%). The outcome was mortality (2.7%), peri-procedure MI (0.4%), re-infarction (3.08%), cardiogenic shock (1.5%) and stent thrombosis (4.3%). CONCLUSION: Our clinical indications and outcome are comparable with international findings. Stable angina was a major indication and stent thrombosis was the major complication observed, particularly after primary percutaneous intervention for STEMI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".