Percutaneous or surgical revascularization is associated with survival benefit in stable coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We assessed the association between early invasive therapy, burden of ischaemia, and survival benefit separately for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Ischaemia involving more than 10% of the left ventricular myocardium may identify patients who benefit from revascularization. However, it is not clear whether this association exists with both PCI and CABG. MATERIALS AND RESULTS: Patients who underwent single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) between 1992 and 2012 were identified. Early revascularization was defined as PCI or CABG performed within 90 days of SPECT MPI. The association between early PCI or CABG and all-cause mortality was assessed using a doubly robust, propensity score matching analysis. In total, 54 522 patients were identified, with median follow-up 8.0 years. Early PCI was performed in 2688 patients and early CABG in 1228. In the matched cohorts, early revascularization was associated with improved survival compared to medical therapy in patients with more than 15% ischaemia for both PCI [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, P = 0.002] and CABG (adjusted HR 0.73, P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In this observational analysis, both PCI and CABG were associated with reduced all-cause mortality in the presence of moderate to severe ischaemia after adjusting for factors leading to revascularization. As the threshold for improved outcomes with revascularization was similar for PCI and CABG, our results suggest that decisions for PCI vs. CABG for early revascularization should be determined by coronary anatomy, patient characteristics, and shared decision making, but not by the burden of ischaemia.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".