Quality of life in high-risk patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease treated either medically or with coronary artery bypass graft surgery - 12-month follow-up.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic diseases, such as atherosclerosis, usually leads to significant short-term improvement. Mid- and long-term results are not always as satisfactory. That is why improvement of quality of life should be the leading qualification criterion for invasive procedures, which sometimes carry a risk of complications. AIM: To determine the quality of life in patients with stable, multivessel coronary artery disease (MCAD), treated surgically or medically. METHODS: The study group comprised 107 patients (pts; 80 males) suffering from MCAD, assigned to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (55 pts) or to medical treatment alone (52 pts). The mean Gensini score in the whole group was 90 (66-132). To evaluate quality of life we used a Short Form-36 (SF-36) health status survey by the International Quality of Life Assessment Project. RESULTS: During a 12-month follow-up 9 pts died (6 pts in the medically treated group and 3 in the CABG group), all for cardiovascular reasons. Patients treated conservatively were more often hospitalised due to angina symptoms (20 vs. 5, p = 0.003). Analysis of SF-36 showed that pts treated surgically had better improvement of quality of life in comparison with medically treated patients. Significant differences were found for physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality, mental health and mental component summary. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that there is a significant difference in health-related quality of life 12 months after CABG surgery and medical treatment alone in high-risk patients with MCAD. Surgical treatment decreases the number of adverse events, better attenuates of anginal and heart failure symptoms, and improves the quality of life, especially the mental component. Our results should encouraged selecting patients with advanced atherosclerosis for revascularisation procedures, even if there is a very high peri-procedural risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".