[Clinical predictors of left ventricular function improvement after percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with ejection fraction below 45%].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The value of clinical predictors of left ventricle function recovery after surgical revascularization in patients with decreased ejection fraction is well documented. However, there are no clinical studies assessing factors which can influence left ventricle function in patients with coronary disease and low ejection fraction (LVEF) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). OBJECTIVE: We tried to assess clinical prognostic factors of left ventricle function improvement after PCI in patients with coronary artery disease and impaired LVEF. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied patients with LVEF < 45% undergoing PCI. We assessed duration and grade of symptoms of heart failure, angina class and echocardiographic parameters of LV systolic function. After 6 months follow-up LVEF was obtained again. We analyzed influence of baseline clinical factors on LVEF recovery after PCI. RESULTS: We studied 29 patients (mean age 54.4 +/- 11 years) before and after PCI. In the whole group of patients we found significant increase in EF (38.4 +/- 6% vs 50.4 +/- 15%, p = 0.005) at follow up examination. There was significant improvement of EF in patients with NYHA class I or II (from 40.4 +/- 5% to 58.1 +/- 9%, p < 0.0001) as compared to NYHA class III or IV (from 31.4% +/- 9% to 31.8 +/- 11, p = NS). In multivariate regression analysis correlation between NYHA class and LVEF at control examination (beta = -0.54, p = 0.03) was independent from epidemiological variables and baseline LVEF. There was significant increase in LVEF in patients with severe angina (CCS III or IV) as compared to patients without angina (DEF 21.3 +/- 5% vs 7.9 +/- 10%, p = 0.009). There was also higher increase in LVEF in patients with chest pain during balloon inflation (delta EF 17.4 +/- 9% vs 5.7 +/- 9%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Mild symptoms of heart failure and independent predictors of left ventricle function recovery after PCI in patients with impaired LVEF. The lack of angina symptoms negatively influence LVEF recovery after PCI.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".