MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467509562

Utility of routine functional testing after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: results from the ROSETTA registry.

2004· article· en· W2467509562 on OpenAlexaff
Eisenberg Mj, David Chas. Schechter, Jeffrey Lefkovits, Evelyne Goudreau, Ubeydullah Deligönül, Mak Kh, Robert Duerr, Del Core M, Philippe Garzon, Thao Huynh, Mark Smilovitch, Steven P. Sedlis, Brown Dl, David Brieger, Louise Pilote

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFunctional testingPercutaneous transluminal coronary angioplastyObservational studyCardiac catheterizationAngioplastyInternal medicinePercutaneousCardiologySurgeryMEDLINE
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is little consensus regarding the use of functional testing after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Some physicians employ a routine functional testing strategy, and others employ a symptom-driven strategy. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of routine post-PTCA functional testing on the use of follow-up cardiac procedures and clinical events. METHODS: The Routine versus Selective Exercise Treadmill Testing after Angioplasty (ROSETTA) Registry is a prospective multicenter observational study examining the use of functional testing after PTCA. A total of 788 patients (pts) were enrolled in the ROSETTA Registry at 13 clinical centers in 5 countries. The frequencies of functional testing, cardiac procedures and clinical events were examined during the first 6 months following a successful PTCA. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly elderly men (mean age, 61+/-11 years; 76% male) who underwent single-vessel PTCA (85%) with stent implantation (58%). During the 6-month follow-up, a total of 237 pts were observed to undergo a routine functional testing strategy (100% having functional testing for routine follow-up), while 551 pts underwent a selective (or clinically-driven) strategy (73% having no functional testing and 27% having functional testing for a clinical indication). Patients in the routine testing group underwent a total of 344 functional tests compared with 165 tests performed in the selective testing group (mean, 1.45 tests/patient versus 0.3 tests/patient; p<0.0001). There was little difference in the rates of follow-up cardiac procedures among the pts undergoing the routine and selective testing strategies [cardiac catheterization, 13.9% versus 17.5% (p=NS); percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 8.4% versus 8.7% (p=NS); coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 2.1% versus 3.3% (p=NS)]. However, clinical events were less common among pts who underwent routine functional testing, e.g., unstable angina (6.1% versus 14.4%; p=0.001), myocardial infarction (0.4% versus 1.6%; p=NS), death (0% versus 2.2%; p=0.02) and composite clinical events (6.3% versus 16.3%; p<0.0001). After controlling for baseline clinical and procedural differences, routine functional testing had a persistent independent association with a reduction in the composite clinical event rate (odds ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.81; p=0.008). CONCLUSION: Routine functional testing after PTCA is associated with a reduction in the frequency of follow-up clinical events. This association may be attributable to the early identification and treatment of pts at risk for follow-up events, or it may be due to clinical differences between pts who are referred for routine and selective functional testing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207