Renal insufficiency and severe coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an important determinant of long-term survival. However, the optimal revascularization strategy for patients with CKD is still controversial. Herein we review the impact of different treatment modalities on the outcomes of patients with CKD. RECENT FINDINGS: CABG could confer better long-term outcomes than PCI in patients with CKD, irrespective of CKD severity. CABG as compared with PCI may be associated with improved long-term survival albeit higher short-term risk. Off-pump as compared with on-pump CABG may be associated with better short-term outcomes but no demonstrable long-term benefit. In CKD patients who are treated with PCI, the use of drug-eluting stents may be associated with better intermediate-term outcomes than bare metal stents. SUMMARY: There is insufficient evidence to inform the optimal revascularization strategy for patients with CKD and severe coronary artery disease. CABG as compared with PCI confers greater long-term benefit but higher upfront risk. A multidisciplinary, team-based evaluation based on individual patient comorbidity, frailty and anatomical disease burden, is recommended when making treatment decisions.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".