Comparative Effectiveness of Routine Invasive Coronary Angiography for Managing Unstable Angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes include unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Most randomized controlled trials of routine versus selective invasive coronary angiography have high rates of crossover from control to intervention groups and do not include subgroup analysis for unstable angina. Consequently, no clear, specific recommendations exist regarding the use of angiography in unstable angina. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of angiography on mortality in unstable angina, incorporating the results of additional cardiac procedures and events. DESIGN: Longitudinal study using hospital discharge data, discrete-time survival analysis with propensity score adjustment, and sensitivity analysis. SETTING: Victoria, Australia, 2001 to 2011. PARTICIPANTS: All residents, all ages. INTERVENTION: Routine invasive coronary angiography. MEASUREMENTS: 12-month all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Emergently admitted patients with unstable angina (n = 33 901) who did or did not receive angiography during their first hospitalization were balanced on 44 covariates of propensity score. Routine angiography was associated with a 52% decrease in 12-month mortality (hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.61]); revascularization offered no additional statistical mortality benefit compared with diagnostic angiography alone. The predicted cumulative probability of death at 12 months was 0.024 (CI, 0.021 to 0.027) for patients receiving angiography within 2 months of their index unstable angina versus 0.097 (CI, 0.090 to 0.105) for those not receiving it. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that to negate the observed effect size, an unmeasured confounder must independently decrease mortality by 90% and have a prevalence gap of 15% or greater between the angiographic groups. LIMITATION: Nonrandom allocation of angiography. CONCLUSION: Patients with unstable angina benefit from an invasive management pathway initiated by invasive coronary angiography during their hospitalization and up to 2 months after discharge. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia and BUPA Health Foundation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".