Characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention within 1 year of coronary artery bypass graft surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the clinical and procedural outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 1 year of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). BACKGROUND: CABG is the preferred revascularization strategy for patients with complex coronary artery disease due to a lower rate of repeat revascularization. Despite advances in surgical technique and medical therapy, >5% of patients require repeat revascularization within 1 year of CABG. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients who underwent PCI within 1 year of CABG were identified from a prospective registry with data on over 20,000 PCI procedures (April 2000-June 2011). 203 post-CABG patients underwent 228 PCI procedures on 390 lesions during this period. 45% of patients had elective PCI while 55% had PCI on an urgent basis. 81% of PCI was performed in native coronary arteries, usually following graft failure in a previously grafted vessel (60%) or in an ungrafted native vessel (21%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who required PCI within 1 year of CABG were more likely to present on an urgent basis and have PCI performed in grafted native coronary vessels. However, nearly third of the patients had PCI to an ungrafted native vessel or to a lesion in the native vessel where the graft was still patent. Further studies are needed to determine whether the use of hybrid revascularization strategies (combination CABG and planned PCI) in appropriate patients could reduce the need for urgent PCI within the first year after CABG. © 2017 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".