Reasons of Non-Guideline-Concordant Treatment in Patients with Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Regret -One Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to find the prevalence and the reasons for receiving non-guideline-concordant treatment in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (mv-CAD), at a single centre. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography, due to stable angina pectoris or non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), and were diagnosed with mv-CAD at our hospital between August 2017 and February 2018 were included in this study. Stand-alone medical treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), or hybrid revascularization is recommended treatment methods by The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and The European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Guidelines (EACTS) on Myocardial Revascularisation. Stabilised NSTE-ACS patients were assessed as stable angina pectoris patient Results: A total of 140 patients (96 male, 68.6% and 111 NSTE-ACS, 79.3%) were included in this study, of which 65 (46.4%) received non-guideline-concordant treatment and 75 patients (53.6%) received guideline-concordant treatment. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics did not differ statistically between patients who received guideline-concordant treatment and non-guideline-concordant treatment. Patients that received non-guideline-concordant treatment did so for the following reasons: patient’s preference and/or cardiologist’s decision of PCI over CABG (42, 64.6%), patient’s refusal of the revascularization method (14, 21.5 %), refusal by the surgery team to perform surgery due to advanced patient age or low left ventricular ejection fraction (5, 7.7%),unavailability of the surgery team (1, 1.5%) and developing ischaemia/myocardial infarction during the waiting period (3, 4.6 %). There was no inappropriate CABG decision. Conclusions: In our study, the prevalence of non-guideline-concordant treatment was high and associated primarily with the preferences of the interventional cardiologists and patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".