MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565067251 · doi:10.1002/ccd.26829

Long‐term outcomes of rotational atherectomy for the percutaneous treatment of chronic total occlusions

2016· article· en· W2565067251 on OpenAlexaff
Lorenzo Azzalini, Rustem Dautov, Soledad Ojeda, Antonio Serra, Susanna Benincasa, Bárbara Bellini, Francesco Giannini, Jorge Chavarría, Livia Gheorghe, Manuel Pan, Mauro Carlino, Antonio Colombo, Stéphane Rinfret

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIMacePercutaneous coronary interventionCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionRevascularizationClinical endpointAtherectomyPercutaneousSurgeryRestenosisStentRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To study the long-term outcomes of rotational atherectomy (RA) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on the incidence, procedural results and long-term outcomes of RA for CTO PCI. METHODS: This registry included data from consecutive patients undergoing CTO PCI at four specialized centers. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization) on follow-up were the primary endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 1003 patients were included. Of these, 35 (3.5%) required RA. As compared with Conventional PCI, RA patients were older (68.9 ± 9.5 vs. 64.6 ± 10.7 years, P = 0.02), had higher prevalence of diabetes (58% vs. 37%, P = 0.01) and of a J-CTO score ≥2 (80% vs. 58%, P = 0.009), driven by severe calcification. Antegrade wire escalation was used more frequently in RA (74% vs. 53%, P = 0.08). RA was performed for balloon failure-to-cross in 51% and failure-to-expand in 49%. One burr was utilized in 86%. The 1.25-mm burr was the largest burr used in 43%. Slow flow/no-reflow was observed in 17%. No other serious RA-related complications were observed. Procedural success was 77% vs. 89% (P = 0.04) in RA vs. Conventional PCI. After a mean follow-up of 658 ± 412 days, MACE rates were similar between groups (15% vs. 13%, P = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The use of RA in CTO PCI was safe, despite a worse patient risk profile and higher procedural complexity, as compared with conventional techniques. Although procedural success was lower in the RA group, there were no differences in long-term clinical outcomes between groups. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207