MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3106734443 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.1763

Mortality benefit of coronary angioplasty vs. conservative strategy in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery presenting with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction

2020· article· en· W3106734443 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shammas Raza Khan, Brinda Thillainathan, Christopher Pavitt, S Dhamrait

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineAnginaPopulationAngioplastyContext (archaeology)Bypass surgeryUnstable anginaCoronary artery bypass surgeryCanadian Cardiovascular SocietySurgeryArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery have been excluded or under-represented in many of the trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. conservative strategy in the management of patients presenting with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Therefore, limited data supports the use of PCI in this context. Given the higher risk profile of these patients, clinicians may default to a conservative strategy given the lack of evidence of benefit of PCI. Our institution consists of one PCI and one non-PCI acute site and serves a population of 500 000 including a uniquely high proportion of the elderly with a high follow up rate and an ideal, interesting population to study with many patients offered a conservative strategy. Methodology Patients who presented over a 5 year period from Jan 2012 to Dec 2017 with NSTEMI and prior CABG were identified from Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) returns. Hospital records were reviewed to exclude patients with type 2 MI and ST elevation MI. We identified patients who were managed conservatively or with PCI and assessed outcomes at the end pf December 2019, giving a follow up range of 2–7 years. The primary outcome was all cause death or myocardial infarction. Secondary outcome measures included readmission at 30 days and 1 year, angina, need for revascularisation. Results 206 patients were identified (mean age 77.7y, 26% female) of whom 107 were managed medically and 99 underwent angiography. 74 (36%) of patients were admitted to the non-interventional site, of which 27 patients underwent angiography. Overall, 48 (23%) went on to have PCI (only 7% of patients from the non-PCI site). 29 patients had PCI to the native coronaries, 16 to a bypass graft and the remainder to both. Age and clinical frailty score (CFS) was significantly higher in patients managed conservatively. The primary end point occurred in a high proportion of patients (124, 74.6%) consisting of 28 MI and 96 deaths during the follow up period. Age at presentation, clinical frailty score (CFS), presence of heart failure and absence of statin use were were significantly associated with the primary outcome. There was a significant difference in the primary outcome in patients managed conservatively (113/158; 72%) compared to those who had PCI (11/48; 23%), P<0.001. Conclusion PCI in NSTEMI patients with prior CABG is significantly associated with improved survival and less myocardial infarction compared to a conservative strategy in this retrospective audit of our patient population, but PCI patients are younger and less frail, which, in themselves, could suggest treatment bias and might confer a survival benefit. PCI rates varied significantly when patients were assessed in non-interventional acute site compared to a PCI site which has important implications for service provision. A large-scale randomised control trial is warranted to guide best practice. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→