Everolimus‐eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation to treat saphenous vein graft disease, single‐center initial experience
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Recent studies have shown favorable outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Data on the use of BVS in saphenous vein graft disease (SVG) is currently lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 10 consecutive patients (13 lesions, including 6 in-stent restenosis) who underwent BVS for SVG disease between May 2013 and June 2015 at a tertiary care institution were included. Median follow-up period was 874 (720-926) days. One patient had scaffold thrombosis (ScT) 15 months after implantation, which was treated medically. Another patient had target lesion revascularization (TLR) in two different lesions, where BVS was used to treat in-stent restenosis. The composite endpoint of TLR, ScT, target vessel myocardial infarction, and cardiac death, was reached in two patients CONCLUSIONS: This first real-world data on the use of the ABSORB™ BVS in patients with SVG disease shows that its implantation is technically feasible. The observed rate of target lesion revascularization was similar to those observed with drug-eluting stents in similar settings. Larger studies are required to better define the optimal use of BVS to treat SVG disease.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it