Clinical effectiveness of bilateral recanalization of chronic coronary artery occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To assess the short- and long-term angiographic and clinical effectiveness of endovascular bilateral recanalization of chronic coronary artery occlusion (CCAO), compared to conservative therapeutic strategy. Material and methods. The study included 56 patients with coronary heart disease and CCAO. Angina Functional Class (FC) was assessed clinically and in electrocardiography tests. Local and global myocardial contractility was assessed using echocardiography. Group I (n=36) included CCAO patients who underwent an attempt of bilateral percutaneous coronary angioplasty; Group II (n=20) included CCAO patients who were treated conservatively. Clinical effectiveness of the treatment was assessed at 12 months. Results. At baseline, 16 and 20 Group I patients had FC III and II, respectively. Out of 36 attempts of bilateral recanalization, 27 were successful, based on the angiography results. All these 27 cases were also clinically successful in the short term, and 20 in the long term. Global myocardial contractility increased from 54±3% to 56,9±4% (p=0,03). In Group II, 10 and 10 patients had baseline FC III and II, respectively. The long-term stabilisation of clinical status was observed in 15 patients, with the mean levels of left ventricular ejection fraction of 53,9±2,4% (p=0,9). Observed complications of coronary angioplasty did not result in clinically significant ischemic and haemorrhagic events, while the clinical improvement was substantially more pronounced, compared to Group II. Conclusion. Bilateral CCAO recanalization is a technically demanding procedure, requiring an extensive surgical expertise and experience, and linked to a higher risk of complications. However, it could be used when the antegrade access is impossible; the anaesthesiological risk of coronary artery bypass graft surgery is high; and the patient refuses the cardiac surgery intervention.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".