Long-Term Follow-Up of Outcomes With F-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Imaging–Assisted Management of Patients With Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction Secondary to Coronary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether viability imaging can impact long-term patient outcomes is uncertain. The PARR-2 study (Positron Emission Tomography and Recovery Following Revascularization) showed a nonsignificant trend toward improved outcomes at 1 year using an F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET)-assisted strategy in patients with suspected ischemic cardiomyopathy. When patients adhered to F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET recommendations, outcome benefit was observed. Long-term outcomes of viability imaging-assisted management have not previously been evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARR-2 randomized patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and suspected CAD being considered for revascularization or transplantation to standard care (n= 195) versus PET-assisted management (n=197) at sites participating in long-term follow-up. The predefined primary outcome was time to composite event (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or cardiac hospitalization). After 5 years, 105 (53%) patients in the PET arm and 111 (57%) in the standard care arm experienced the composite event (hazard ratio for time to composite event =0.82 [95% confidence interval 0.62-1.07]; P=0.15). When only patients who adhered to PET recommendations were included, the hazard ratio for the time to primary outcome was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.54-0.99; P=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: After a 5-year follow-up in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and suspected CAD, overall, PET-assisted management did not significantly reduce cardiac events compared with standard care. However, significant benefits were observed when there was adherence to PET recommendations. PET viability imaging may be best applied when there is likely to be adherence to imaging-based recommendations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00385242.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".