What is the state of hybrid coronary revascularization in 2018?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive surgical bypass with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents, the goal being to leverage the strengths of each approach. Here we provide an update on HCR from the past 12 months. RECENT FINDINGS: HCR represents a minority of surgical revascularization cases from a small number of highly experienced surgical centers. Most single-center observational series show no differences in major cardiovascular outcomes comparing HCR and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or HCR and PCI. The 5-year results of the first randomized study comparing HCR to CABG reported no difference in all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Comparing HCR with multivessel PCI, a large, prospective observational study reported no difference in risk-adjusted major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months. The Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Trial is an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to compare HCR versus PCI for patients with proximal left anterior descending disease or left main disease. This trial is currently recruiting patients. SUMMARY: HCR is a potentially attractive alternative to both surgical revascularization and multivessel PCI when performed in experienced centers for highly selected patients. The results of a large, multicenter, prospective trial will provide greater clarity on the clinical role and optimal coronary anatomy for this third revascularization 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".