In-Hospital Clinical Outcomes and Procedural Complications of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Elderly Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As population growth leads to an increase in the number of the elderly with coronary artery disease, an evaluation of the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the elderly patients seems to be essential. METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort study was performed on 468 patients in two groups of elderly and non-elderly patients (mean age: 60.01 ± 10.84 years; ≥ 70 years, 20.1%; men, 62%) who underwent PCI, to evaluate the procedural success and in-hospital major and minor adverse cardiovascular events in the elderly patients. RESULTS: The procedural success rate was significantly lower (95.7% vs. 99.5%, P = 0.017) and the rates of in-hospital complications were significantly higher (10.6% vs. 0.8%, P < 0.0001) in elderly (+70) than in non-elderly patients. On the basis of a multivariate analysis, being elderly was not an independent predictor of procedural failure, but increased the chance of in-hospital complications to 8% higher (odds ratio: 0.08; 95% confidence interval: 0.01 - 0.39; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Regardless of the difference in the procedural success and in-hospital complication rates between our two study groups, aging is not an important predictor of them. Furthermore, PCI should not be refused in elderly patients if indicated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".