MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019430611 · doi:10.1002/ccd.28933

The impact of coronary perforation in percutaneous interventions involving the left main stem coronary artery in the United Kingdom 2007–2014: Insights from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database

2020· article· en· W3019430611 on OpenAlexaff
Hussain I. Hussain, Majd Protty, Sean Gallagher, Sara Al‐Raisi, Omar Aldalati, Vasim Farooq, Andrew Sharp, Richard Anderson, Tim Kinnaird

Bibliographic record

VenueCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionCardiogenic shockPerforationMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseOdds ratioAngioplastyCardiologyAtherectomyPsychological interventionSurgeryStentRestenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly utilized for treatment of coronary disease involving the unprotected left main stem (ULMS). However, no studies to date have examined the outcomes of such interventions when complicated by coronary perforation (CP). METHODS: Using the British Cardiovascular Intervention society (BCIS) database, data were analyzed on all ULMS-PCI procedures complicated by CP in England and Wales between 2007 and 2014. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify predictors of ULMS CP and to evaluate the association between this complication and outcomes. RESULTS: During 10,373 ULMS-PCI procedures, CP occurred more frequently than in non-ULMS-PCI (0.9 vs. 0.4%, p < .001) with a stable annual incidence. Covariates associated with CP included number of stents used, female gender, use of rotational atherectomy and chronic total occlusion (CTO) intervention. Adjusted odds of adverse outcomes for ULMS-PCI complicated by CP were higher for peri-procedural complications including cardiogenic shock, tamponade, side-branch loss, DC cardioversion, in-hospital major bleeding, transfusion requirement, and peri-procedural myocardial infarction. There were also significantly increased odds for in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACCE, OR 8.961, 95% CI [4.902-16.383]) and 30-day mortality (OR 5.301, 95% CI [2.741-10.251]). CONCLUSIONS: CP is an infrequent event during ULMS-PCI and is predicted by female gender, rotational atherectomy, CTO interventions or number of stents used. CP was associated with significantly higher odds of mortality and morbidity, but at rates similar to previously published all-comer PCI complicated by CP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatheterization and Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207