MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality in Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Percutaneous Interventions With Coronary Bypass Surgery

2020· review· en· W3092193456 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Gaudino, Irbaz Hameed, Michael E. Farkouh, Mohamed Rahouma, Ajita Naik, N. Bryce Robinson, Yongle Ruan, Michelle Demetres, Giuseppe Biondi‐Zoccai, Dominick J. Angiolillo, Emilia Bagiella, Mary E. Charlson, Umberto Benedetto, Marc Ruel, David P. Taggart, Leonard N. Girardi, Deepak L. Bhatt, Stephen E. Fremes

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteDaiichi Sankyo CompanyIdorsia PharmaceuticalsDuke Clinical Research InstituteEisaiBelvoir Media GroupNovo NordiskMedicines CompanyAstraZenecaAmarin CorporationChiesi USAF. Hoffmann-La RocheIronwood Pharmaceuticals, IncorporatedBoston Scientific CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbCleveland ClinicDaiichi Sankyo EuropeBayerAbbott LaboratoriesCSL BehringEli Lilly and CompanyPfizerEdwards LifesciencesAmgenSanofiRegeneron PharmaceuticalsAmerican Heart AssociationU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionCoronary artery diseaseRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCochrane LibraryAngioplastyMortality rateClinical trialCardiologySurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Mortality is a common outcome in trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Controversy exists regarding whether all-cause mortality or cardiac mortality is preferred as a study end point, because noncardiac mortality should be unrelated to the treatment. Objective: To evaluate the difference in all-cause and cause-specific mortality in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing PCI with CABG for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. Data Sources: MEDLINE (1946 to the present), Embase (1974 to the present), and the Cochrane Library (1992 to the present) databases were searched on November 24, 2019. Reference lists of included articles were also searched, and additional studies were included if appropriate. Study Selection: Articles were considered for inclusion if they were in English, were RCTs comparing PCI with drug-eluting or bare-metal stents and CABG for the treatment of coronary artery disease, and reported mortality and/or cause-specific mortality. Trials of PCI involving angioplasty without stenting were excluded. For each included trial, the publication with the longest follow-up duration for each outcome was selected. Data Extraction and Synthesis: For data extraction, all studies were reviewed by 2 independent investigators, and disagreements were resolved by a third investigator in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Data were pooled using fixed- and random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific (cardiac vs noncardiac) mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for PCI trials using drug-eluting vs bare-metal stents and for trials involving patients with left main disease. Results: Twenty-three unique trials were included involving 13 620 unique patients (6829 undergoing PCI and 6791 undergoing CABG; men, 39.9%-99.0% of study populations; mean age range, 60.0-71.0 years). The weighted mean (SD) follow-up was 5.3 (3.6) years. Compared with CABG, PCI was associated with a higher rate of all-cause (incidence rate ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29) and cardiac (incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45) mortality but also noncardiac mortality (incidence rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00-1.41). Conclusions and Relevance: Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with higher all-cause, cardiac, and noncardiac mortality compared with CABG at 5 years. The significantly higher noncardiac mortality associated with PCI suggests that even noncardiac deaths after PCI may be procedure related and supports the use of all-cause mortality as the end point for myocardial revascularization trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.213
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.558
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2130.558
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.022
Bibliometrics0.0170.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.356
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.128 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations123
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Internal MedicineSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207