Chinese patients’ clinical and psychosocial outcomes in the 6 months following percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In China, there has been a precipitous increase in the number of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) conducted. We sought to characterize the clinical and psychosocial trajectory of PCI patients from the time of procedure through 6 months post, and correlates of adverse cardiovascular events (ACEs). METHODS: In this prospective, observational study, patients from 2 hospitals in Shanghai, China were assessed. At follow-up visits at 1, 3 and 6 months post-PCI, clinical indicators were again extracted from patients' clinical records, including ACEs, and they completed validated surveys assessing self-management, as well as psychosocial indicators (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; quality of life [QoL]: SF-12, Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ]). Repeated measures analysis of variance, adjusted for Barthel index and PCI indication, was used to assess change over time in risk factors and psychosocial indicators. Logistic regression was used to explore correlates of ACEs. RESULTS: 610 participants (mean age = 63.3; n = 150, 18.2% female) were recruited, of which 491 (80.5%) were retained at 6 months. 82 (16.7%) had an ACE at any time point, including most commonly angina and stroke (only 1 death). Clinical indicators such as blood pressure (p < 0.031 for both), symptom burden (p < .01 on all subscales) and QoL (p < 0.001 for both, but started quite low) improved over 6 months. Anxiety and depressive symptoms were above threshold, and the latter worsened over time (p < 0.001). With adjustment for age and indication, patients with any ACEs had higher sleep latency (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-2.10]), and depressive symptoms (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.02-1.41), but lower anxiety (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.67-0.93) compared to those without. CONCLUSION: Centers may wish to re-visit patient selection criteria and processes for PCI, as well as implement mental health screening and treatment protocols, as can be achieved through cardiac rehabilitation, given how hazardous psychosocial distress is in this population.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".