Long-term outcome of conservatively treated patients with borderline coronary lesions--role of the fractional flow reserve measurement.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been recommended as one of the functional methods which can be used to establish indications for revascularisation in patients with borderline coronary lesions. AIM: To assess long-term outcome of patients with borderline coronary lesions in whom the decision to implement conservative treatment was based on the results of FFR. METHODS: The study group consisted of 41 patients (13 females, mean age 61+/-9 years) who had CCS class II angina, an isolated borderline (40-70%) coronary lesion and FFR >0.75. All patients received 40 mg of simvastatin, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and aspirin. The follow-up duration ranged from 7 to 32 months (mean 15.2+/-7.1, median 14.5 months). The analysed end-points included cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) (with or without ST segment elevation) and revascularisation of the target coronary artery. RESULTS: The mean FFR value in the whole study group was 0.91+/-0.05. Three (7%) patients had complications during follow-up: one patient developed MI, and two had coronary artery stenosis progression, requiring angioplasty. These patients had similar clinical and angiographic characteristics as well as FFR values as patients without complications. Among patients with uneventful outcome, in 33 (87%) anginal symptoms improved whereas in the remaining 5 (13%) patients CCS class did not change. Patients with angina alleviation were older and had higher FFR values than patients without improvement (63+/-8 vs 48+/-6 years, p=0.0005; and 0.92+/-0.05 vs 0.86+/-0.08, p=0.04, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with borderline coronary lesions and stable angina, angioplasty can be delayed on the basis of the FFR results. This approach is safe and is associated with an asymptomatic long-term follow-up in more than 90% of patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".