Outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients after previous coronary artery bypass surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients after previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) often require repeat percutaneous revascularisation due to poor patency rates of saphenous vein grafts (SVG) and higher risk of re-CABG. Few data are available to evaluate different percutaneous revascularisation strategies in patients after previous CABG. AIM: To evaluate outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients after previous CABG, including the effect of treatment on the quality of life and symptoms, and secondly to assess the relation between angiographic factors and treatment outcomes METHODS: This was a prospective observational study which included 78 patients after previous CABG. Following coronary angiography, the patients were assigned to one of three groups: group A (n = 20), PCI of a SVG (PCI SVG); group B (n = 29), PCI of a native coronary artery (PCI NA); group C (n = 29), control group that received medical treatment (MT) only. Duration of follow-up was 12 months. RESULTS: Compared to MT patients, patients treated with PCI had significantly higher Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class (2.75 vs. 2.41, p = 0.03) and more frequently had coronary angiography performed due to unstable angina (57% vs. 31%, p = 0.04). Patients in the PCI SVG group had significantly older SVG conduits compared to the PCI NA group (13.4 years vs. 8.2 years, p = 0.005). At 12 months of follow-up, we found a significant improvement in the EQ-5D index of the quality of life, and a significant reduction in CCS class in the PCI SVG group (0.66 vs. 0.7, p = 0.0003, and 2.75 vs. 1.9, p < 0.001, respectively) and in the PCI NA group (0.65 vs. 0.72, p < 0.001, and 2.75 vs. 2.17, p < 0.001, respectively), but no improvement in the MT group. Treatment outcomes did not differ significantly between the three groups (combined endpoint rate 20% vs. 13% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.37). In multivariate analysis, SVG age > 11 years was identified as a significant predictor of poor outcomes in patients treated with PCI after previous CABG. CONCLUSIONS: PCI in patients after previous CABG does not improve prognosis but significantly improves the quality of life and reduces symptom severity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".