Safety and feasibility evaluation of planning and execution of surgical revascularisation solely based on coronary CTA and FFR <sub>CT</sub> in patients with complex coronary artery disease: study protocol of the FASTTRACK CABG study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The previously published SYNTAX III REVOLUTION trial demonstrated that clinical decision-making between coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention based on coronary CT angiography (CCTA) had a very high agreement with the treatment decision derived from invasive coronary angiography (ICA). The study objective of the FASTTRACK CABG is to assess the feasibility of CCTA and fractional flow reserve derived from CTA (FFR CT ) to replace ICA as a surgical guidance method for planning and execution of CABG in patients with three-vessel disease with or without left main disease. Methods and analysis The FASTTRACK CABG is an investigator-initiated single-arm, multicentre, prospective, proof-of-concept and first-in-man study with feasibility and safety analysis. Surgical revascularisation strategy and treatment planning will be solely based on CCTA and FFR CT without knowledge of the anatomy defined by ICA. Clinical follow-up visit including CCTA will be performed 30 days after CABG in order to assess graft patency and adequacy of the revascularisation with respect to the surgical planning based on non-invasive imaging (CCTA) with functional assessment (FFR CT ) and compared with ICA. Primary feasibility endpoint is CABG planning and execution solely based on CCTA and FFR CT in 114 patients. Primary safety endpoint based on 30 day CCTA is graft assessment and topographical adequacy of the revascularisation procedure. Automatic non-invasive assessment of functional coronary anatomy complexity is also evaluated with FFR CT for functional Synergy Between percutaneous coronary intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Score assessment on CCTA. CCTA with FFR CT might provide better anatomical and functional analysis of the coronary circulation leading to appropriate anatomical and functional revascularisation, and thereby contributing to a better outcome. Ethics and dissemination Each patient has to provide written informed consent as approved by the ethical committee of the respective clinical site. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and will be disseminated at scientific conferences. Trial registration number NCT04142021 .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".