Outcomes following percutaneous coronary revascularization among South Asian and Chinese Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous data suggest significant ethnic differences in outcomes following percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI), though previous studies have focused on subgroups of PCI patients or used administrative data only. We sought to compare outcomes in a population-based cohort of men and women of South Asian (SA), Chinese and "Other" ethnicity. METHODS: Using a population-based registry, we identified 41,792 patients who underwent first revascularization via PCI in British Columbia, Canada, between 2001 and 2010. We defined three ethnic groups (SA, 3904 [9.3%]; Chinese, 1345 [3.2%]; and all "Others" 36,543 [87.4%]). Differences in mortality, repeat revascularization (RRV) and target vessel revascularization (TVR), at 30 days and from 31 days to 2 years were examined. RESULTS: Adjusted mortality from 31 days to 2 years was lower in Chinese patients than in "Others" (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.97), but not different between SAs and "Others". SA patients had higher RRV at 30 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.30; 95% CI: 1.12-1.51) and from 31 days to 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.17; 95% CI: 1.06-1.30) compared to "Others". In contrast, Chinese patients had a lower rate of RRV from 31 days to 2 years (adjusted HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64-0.96) versus "Others". SA patients also had higher rates of TVR at 30 days (adjusted OR 1.35; 95% CI: 1.10-1.66) and from 31 days to 2 years (adjusted HR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06-1.34) compared to "Others". Chinese patients had a lower rate of TVR from 31 days to 2 years (adjusted HR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: SA had higher RRV and TVR rates while Chinese Canadians had lower rates of long-term RRV, compared to those of "Other" ethnicity. Further research to elucidate the reasons for these differences could inform targeted strategies to improve outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".