MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201801383 · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.018828

Drug‐Eluting or Bare‐Metal Stents for Left Anterior Descending or Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization

2021· review· en· W3201801383 on OpenAlexaff
Raffaele Piccolo, Kaare Harald Bønaa, Orestis Efthimiou, Olivier Varenne, Philip Urban, Christoph Kaiser, Lorenz Räber, Adam de Belder, Wouter Remkes, Arnoud W.J. van ’t Hof, Goran Stanković, Pedro A. Lemos, Tom Wilsgaard, Jörg Reifart, Alfredo E. Rodríguez, Expedito E. Ribeiro, Patrick W. Serruys, Alexandre Abizaid, Manel Sabaté, Robert A. Byrne, José M. de la Torre Hernández, William Wijns, Giovanni Esposito, Peter Jüni, Stephan Windecker, Marco Valgimigli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineHazard ratioRevascularizationCoronary artery diseaseDrug-eluting stentStentArteryPercutaneous coronary interventionConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background New‐generation drug‐eluting stents (DES) reduce target‐vessel revascularization compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS), and recent data suggest that DES have the potential to decrease the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality. We evaluated the treatment effect of DES versus BMS according to the target artery (left anterior descending [LAD] and/or left main [LM] versus other territories [no‐LAD/LM]). Methods and Results The Coronary Stent Trialist (CST) Collaboration gathered individual patient data of randomized trials of DES versus BMS for the treatment of coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were derived from a 1‐stage individual patient data meta‐analysis. We included 26 024 patients across 19 trials: 13 650 (52.4%) in the LAD/LM and 12 373 (47.6%) in the no‐LAD/LM group. At 6‐year follow‐up, there was strong evidence that the treatment effect of DES versus BMS depended on the target vessel ( P ‐interaction=0.024). Compared with BMS, DES reduced the risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction to a greater extent in the LAD/LM (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68–0.85) than in the no‐LAD/LM territories (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83–1.05). This benefit was driven by a lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70–0.98) and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65–0.85) in patients with LAD/LM disease randomized to DES. An interaction ( P =0.004) was also found for all‐cause mortality with patients with LAD/LM disease deriving benefit from DES (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76–0.97). Conclusions As compared with BMS, new‐generation DES were associated with sustained reduction in the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction if used for the treatment of LAD or left main coronary stenoses. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO ; Unique identifier: CRD42017060520.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207