Complete revascularization in stable multivessel coronary artery disease: A real world analysis from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than half of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have multivessel disease (MVD). The prognostic significance of PCI in stable patients has recently been debated, but little data exists about the potential benefit of complete revascularization (CR) in stable MVD. We investigated the prognostic benefit of CR in patients undergoing PCI for stable disease. METHODS: We compared CR versus incomplete revascularization (IR) in 8,436 patients with MVD. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 1,399 patients (17%) underwent CR during the index PCI procedure for stable disease. CR was associated with lower mortality (6.2 vs. 10.7%, p < .001) and lower repeat revascularization at 5 years (12.7 vs. 18.4%, p < .001). Multivariable-adjusted analyses indicated that CR was associated with lower mortality (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91, p = .005) and repeat revascularization at 5 years (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66-0.93, p = .005). These findings were also confirmed in propensity-matched cohorts. Subgroup analyses indicated that CR conferred survival in older patients, male patients, absence of renal disease, greater angina (CCS Class III-IV) and heart failure (NYHA Class III-IV) symptoms, and greater burden of coronary disease. In sensitivity analyses where patients with subsequent repeat revascularization events were excluded, CR remained a strong predictor for lower mortality (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54-0.89, p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of stable patients with MVD, CR was an independent predictor of long-term survival. This benefit was specifically seen in higher risk patient groups and indicates that CR may benefit selected stable patients with MVD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".