Population-Based Study on Patterns of Cardiac Stress Testing After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The appropriate use criteria considers cardiac stress testing within 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to be rarely appropriate, unless prompted by symptoms or change in clinical status. Little is known about the patterns of cardiac stress testing after PCI in the single-payer Canadian healthcare system, where mechanisms for reimbursement are different from the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: Frequency and timing of cardiac stress testing within 2 years of PCI performed between April 2004 and March 2013 in Ontario, Canada, was determined from linked provincial databases. Subsequent rates of coronary angiography and revascularization after stress testing were ascertained. Of the 112 691 patients with PCI, 67 442 (59.8%) underwent at least 1 stress test, with 38 267 (34.0%) undergoing repeat stress testing (ie, >1 stress test) within 2 years. Patients who underwent stress testing were younger, had less medical comorbidities, were more likely to reside in urban areas, and had higher incomes. Spikes in incidence of repeat stress testing were observed at 3 to 4 months, 6 to 7 months, and 12 to 13 months after the prior stress test. Of those tested, only 5.9% underwent subsequent coronary angiography, and only 3.1% underwent repeat revascularization within 60 days of stress testing. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of all patients undergo cardiac stress testing within 2 years of PCI, with one third undergoing repeat stress tests. Only 1 of 30 tested patients underwent repeat revascularization. These findings reinforce the appropriate use criteria recommendations against routine stress testing after PCI. Further work is needed to aid with the selection of patients most likely to benefit from stress testing after PCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".