Management strategies and 5-year outcomes in Polish patients with stable coronary artery disease in the CLARIFY registry versus other European countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION An international registry of ambulatory patients with stable coronary artery disease (CLARIFY) allows a comparison of management and outcomes in real‑life setting. OBJECTIVES We aimed to compare the management strategies and 5‑year outcomes in patients from Poland and from other European countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS Stable coronary artery disease was defined as previous myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularization, coronary stenosis greater than 50%, or documented symptomatic myocardial ischemia. Patients were followed on an annual basis for 5 years. RESULTS Among the total of 32 703 patients, 1000 were enrolled in Poland, and 17 326 in other European countries. Polish patients were younger, with a higher proportion of women, smokers, and patients with previous MI, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. Patients in both cohorts received adequate medical treatment, with more Polish patients receiving β‑blockers. Blood pressure and lipid control to target was similar and remained low in both cohorts. Diabetes control and successful smoking cessation rates were lower in Poland than in other European countries. Polish patients more often underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. All‑cause (8.5% vs 7.9%; P = 0.81) and cardiovascular death rates (5.3% vs 4.9%; P = 0.82) did not differ between the groups, but fatal or nonfatal MI occurred more often in the Polish cohort (5% vs 3.1%; P = 0.006). Angina control was better in Poland than in other European countries (Canadian Cardiovascular Society class II-IV, 11.5% vs 15.8% of patients; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS Risk factor control was insufficient both in patients from Poland and in those from other European countries. The more frequent use of revascularization in Polish patients was not linked to improved outcomes, but, together with more extensive prescription of β‑blockers, might have contributed to better angina control.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".