Current Perspectives and Practices on Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine contemporary perspectives and practices on chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: The frequency and success of CTO-PCI have been increasing in recent years. METHODS: An online questionnaire was created and distributed to cardiologists within the United States and internationally. RESULTS: A total of 1149 responses were obtained. The United States (n = 845; 73.5%), Asia (n = 98; 8.5%), Europe (n = 88; 7.7%), South America (n = 42; 3.7%), and Canada (n = 33; 2.9%) accounted for most responses. Mean practice duration of the respondents was 16.4 ± 11.5 years and 66.9% were interventional cardiologists. Most respondents agreed that CTO-PCI results in an improvement of patient symptoms (90.7%), left ventricular function (79.3%), arrhythmia risk (69.2%), and overall survival (63.1%). Interventional cardiologists had a more favorable view of the benefits of CTO-PCI as compared with non-interventional cardiologists (P<.001). Most respondents estimated the procedural success rates of contemporary CTO-PCI to be between 51%-75% (34.2%) and 76%-85% (30.2%), with interventional cardiologists estimating higher success rates than non-interventionalists (P<.001). Perforation, mortality, and tamponade were the three most concerning complications. Time and procedure complexity were reported to be the most significant barriers to the development of a CTO-PCI program. CONCLUSIONS: Most cardiologists believe that CTO-PCI can provide significant clinical benefits and can be accomplished with moderate to high success rates. Interventional cardiologists have a more favorable view of CTO-PCI as compared with non-invasive cardiologists.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".