Invasive treatment of coronary artery disease in octogenarians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are many patients aged over 80 years among those hospitalised for coronary artery disease (CAD). The unanswered question is whether invasive treatment of such patients is effective and safe. AIM: To assess and compare one-year clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and surgical coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients aged over 80 years and in younger patients. METHOD: There were 63 patients aged over 80 years suffering from CAD who underwent either PTCA or CABG. The control group consisted of 40 patients aged 60-65 years treated in the same way. Data on medical history, cardiovascular risk factors, and angiographic findings were analysed. The potential risks of the procedures, post-procedural complications as well as the clinical status at the end of one-year follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 24 surgical revascularisation procedures and 39 PCIs performed in the very old patients. Stable angina was found in 29 cases, unstable angina in 19 and acute myocardial infarction in 15 patients. There were three in-hospital deaths and 18 periprocedural complications were noted. During the one-year follow-up period six deaths occurred, persistent or recurrent angina was found in 11 patients after PCI and two after CABG. There were no deaths in the control group and the incidence of minor complications was similar to the senile group. In younger patients who underwent CABG, CCS class at one year was lower than in the very old ones. CONCLUSIONS: The invasive treatment of coronary artery disease in octogenarians is feasible with satisfactory results and acceptable procedural risks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".