Patient outcomes in GuideLiner facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention stratified by the SYNTAX score: A retrospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine patient outcomes in GuideLiner facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention stratified by the SYNTAX score. DESIGN: Single centre retrospective cohort analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 540 consecutive cases facilitated by GuideLiner at a single center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Successful stent delivery, in-hospital, 30 day and 1 year mortality rates stratified by SYNTAX score. RESULTS: The most common indication for GuideLiner was need for increased support for balloon or stent delivery (82%), 6% for non-coaxial guide, 9% for chronic total occlusion and 3% for selective vessel engagement. Successful stent delivery was achieved in 91% of all cases, with no complications occurred due to GuideLiner use. In-hospital, 30 day and 1 year mortality rates were 2.8%, 2.1% and 4.5%, respectively. The high SYNTAX group was associated with higher rates of initial TIMI score of 0-1; however, the final TIMI score rate of successful delivery and complications did not differ between groups. In-hospital and 1 year mortality rates were higher in the higher SYNTAX groups. CONCLUSIONS: The GuideLiner is an easy to use guide catheter extension system with high rates of success and low rates of complications, across all SYNTAX groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".