Abstract 10383: Comparative Assessment of Medical Therapy, PCI, or CABG on Clinical Outcomes in Diabetic Patients With Stable CAD According to Coronary Angiography and Left Ventricular Function: Patient-level Meta-analysis of the BARI-2D, COURAGE, and FREEDOM Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The benefits of optimal medical therapy (OMT) with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery have been evaluated in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) but analyses have not been stratified by detailed angiographic CAD burden or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods: A patient-level meta-analysis was undertaken among T2DM patients enrolled in COURAGE, BARI 2D and FREEDOM to assess the impact of randomization to OMT, PCI + OMT, or CABG + OMT on a composite end-point of Death/MI/Stroke and stratified by LVEF (≥ 50%, < 50%), 1, 2 or 3 vessel disease (VD) (% diameter stenosis ≥ 50%) and presence or absence of proximal left anterior descending (pLAD) disease. Hazard ratios (HR) for treatment groups were calculated from Cox regression models including all patients adjusting for trial and revascularization stratum in BARI 2D. Multivariable adjustment for risk factors was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Results: There were 5,034 patients included in the analysis (BARI 2D: n=2,368, COURAGE: n=766, FREEDOM: n=1,900) of whom 17% had LVEF < 50%, 29% had pLAD, and 77% had 2 or 3 VD. A total of 1,591 patients were randomized to OMT alone, 2,118 to PCI + OMT, and 1,325 to CABG + OMT. There were 1,116 events during a median 4.5 year follow-up. There was no significant effect on outcomes with OMT vs PCI + OMT irrespective of LVEF, presence/absence of pLAD and number of VD. By contrast, CABG + OMT significantly reduced the risk of Death/MI/Stroke in patients with 2 or 3 VD, irrespective of LVEF and presence/absence of pLAD (see Table). Results were similar with multivariable adjustment. Conclusions: In patients with T2DM and stable CAD, OMT alone appears to be as effective as PCI + OMT while CABG + OMT significantly reduces cardiovascular events in those with multivessel CAD, irrespective of LVEF or presence of pLAD.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".