Revascularization for patients with diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an update on the management of patients with diabetes mellitus and requiring coronary revascularization. RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence continues to show that patients with diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease represent a very high-risk group of patients. Choice of stent appears important for minimizing target lesion and target vessel adverse events with everolimus eluting stents having the best performance, particularly in patients being treated with insulin. The higher risk of adverse angioplasty results in patients with diabetes appears most related to the disease state per se and not necessarily to anatomical complexities. Interestingly, physiologic documentation of nonischemia producing lesions with use of fractional flow reserve appears less reassuring in this setting of aggressive and rapid atherosclerosis progression, particularly if myocardial infarction has occurred previously, than in patients without diabetes. Coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with appropriate anatomy and diabetes continues to emerge in many analyzes as the optimal, long-term therapy. IMPLICATIONS: The treatment of diabetes per se, advances in stent technology and optimization of coronary artery bypass techniques are all occurring in parallel making it very critical for the design of modern era trials that keep pace with these advances. Currently, in patients with appropriate anatomy who are willing candidates, bypass surgery remains the optimal, long-term therapeutic option.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".