Percutaneous coronary intervention for the management of stable ischemic heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to summarize landmark studies and recent evidence in support for and against benefits of routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). RECENT FINDINGS: Randomized controlled trials have raised uncertainty regarding the prognostic benefits of routine PCI in patients with SIHD. The benefits of PCI to improve symptoms and quality of life (QOL), thought to be more established, was brought into question recently by the ORBITA trial. Two hundred participants with single vessel SIHD optimized first on antianginal therapy were randomized to PCI or sham PCI procedure. At 6 weeks, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of exercise time increment (PCI minus sham PCI 16.6 s, 95% confidence interval -8.9 to 42.0 s, P = 0.20), or secondary endpoints of change in angina or QOL scores between the groups. SUMMARY: Findings from this first placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with single vessel SIHD suggest that PCI need not necessarily be the first line or default strategy for symptomatic improvement. Results from the ongoing ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial will provide further guidance regarding symptomatic and prognostic benefits of early angiography and revascularization for higher risk SIHD patients with moderate-severe ischemia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".